From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Timmons v. Hecker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1985
110 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

April 15, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).


Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Trial Term correctly denied the motion by plaintiff's counsel to strike the testimony of the pathologist and toxicologist based on defendant's failure to disclose the names of those witnesses during discovery. The toxicologist and pathologist testified as expert witnesses; as such, their names would ordinarily not be discoverable ( see, Kincaid v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 79 A.D.2d 1094, 1095; Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 349). Moreover, the toxicologist's report was independently admissible under County Law § 674 (3) (b) ( see also, Short v. Ohland Meat Corp., 108 Misc.2d 338 [Niehoff, J.]). As to any purported deficiencies in the chain of custody relating to blood samples taken from the deceased, such matters went to the weight and not to the admissibility of the resulting report ( see, People v. Capers, 105 A.D.2d 842).

Although certain errors occurred in the court's charge, we do not view them as rising to a degree of significance sufficient to merit reversal on this record. Moreover, the court's charge, as a whole, amply and correctly apprised the jury concerning comparative negligence and proximate cause. Finally, the verdict was clearly not against the weight of the credible evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Titone, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Timmons v. Hecker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1985
110 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Timmons v. Hecker

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT TIMMONS, Individually and as Administrator of SUZANNE L. TIMMONS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 1985

Citations

110 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Mikos v. Ackerman

In any event, the plaintiffs have failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the infant plaintiff's…

McKim v. Frobar Investment Company

However, none of the alleged errors are preserved for appellate review. In any event, the charge as a whole…