From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wintermute v. Vandemark Chem., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 31, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

12-31-2015

Scott WINTERMUTE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. VANDEMARK CHEMICAL, INC., Defendant–Appellant.

Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo (Melissa L. Vincton of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Bisogno & Meyerson, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick Bisogno of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.


Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo (Melissa L. Vincton of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Bisogno & Meyerson, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick Bisogno of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.

MEMORANDUM: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell inside a building at defendant's chemical plant. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and Supreme Court denied defendant's posttrial motion seeking to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a). We agree with defendant that the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to present the testimony of a witness who interviewed plaintiff concerning the facts and circumstances of his fall (see generally Kaplan v. Sparks [Appeal No. 1], 221 A.D.2d 974, 974, 635 N.Y.S.2d 396 ). That evidence was relevant to the critical issue whether plaintiff slipped on snow or ice inside of defendant's building, or whether plaintiff tracked the snow into the building on his boots. Moreover, inasmuch as plaintiff was in possession of the written report generated as a result of the interview well before trial, plaintiff demonstrated no prejudice from the untimely disclosure of this witness (see O'Callaghan v. Walsh, 211 A.D.2d 531, 531–532, 621 N.Y.S.2d 343 ). We thus conclude that the court erred in denying defendant's posttrial motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial (see CPLR 4404[a] ).

In light of our determination, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the posttrial motion is granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted.

SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wintermute v. Vandemark Chem., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 31, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Wintermute v. Vandemark Chem., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Scott WINTERMUTE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. VANDEMARK CHEMICAL, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 31, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 1482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
21 N.Y.S.3d 900
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9710

Citing Cases

Monzac v. 1141 Elder Towers LLC

The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of Henry Soto, defendant's…