From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bertan v. Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1987
131 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

June 29, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McBrien, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The record establishes that the jury's verdict in favor of the respondent was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and, thus, was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).

The plaintiff's claim that the trial court erroneously denied her application to present rebuttal testimony in order to contradict the opinion of one of the defense experts that had Dr. Weinstein caused the injury complained of, i.e., a transected ureter, the plaintiff "would never have survived [for] a month", or until the time the injury was discovered, is without merit. While "a party has the right to impeach or discredit the testimony of an opponent" upon rebuttal (Ankersmit v Tuch, 114 N.Y. 51, 55; see, Frias v Fanning, 119 A.D.2d 796; Richardson, Evidence § 517 [Prince 10th ed]), we perceive no abuse of discretion in this regard, particularly since, as the trial court observed, the plaintiff's expert, whom she sought to recall to the stand, was specifically and extensively questioned as to the effects that a severed ureter would have upon a patient. The plaintiff's remaining allegations of error concerning the conduct of the trial, which are presented in a manner not suitable for an appellate brief (see, CPLR 5528), are similarly unavailing.

Finally, the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or for a hearing to delve into the potential evidence. She alleged that this evidence could have demonstrated that Dr. Weinstein fraudulently tampered with the record of his surgical procedure upon the plaintiff, specifically, that he replaced the typewritten record with a subsequently handwritten report, the latter of which was part of the hospital record and admitted into evidence. The application was procedurally defective inasmuch as it was not made within 15 days after verdict, as prescribed by CPLR 4405 (see, CPLR 4405, 5015 [a] [2]). On a substantive level, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the witnesses who possessed this alleged evidence could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence (see, Futterman v Mintzer, 111 A.D.2d 219; Levantino v Insurance Co., 102 Misc.2d 77, 80-81), particularly since the plaintiff was in possession of the hospital records for at least seven years prior to trial and thus had every opportunity, had she suspected an irregularity, to investigate the recording practices of both the doctor and the hospital. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the evidence is "of such a nature, and is so positive and convincing, that it [would have], in all probability, produce[d] a different result" (Collins v Central Trust Co., 226 App. Div. 486, 488). Indeed, the plaintiff has acknowledged her inability to identify the substance of the information which the witnesses would have provided, other than that the report had been typewritten, and, as such, the motion was predicated on mere surmise and speculation insufficient to warrant further inquiry (see, Futterman v Mintzer, supra; Oregon Leopold Day Center Assn. v Di Marco Constructors Corp., 104 A.D.2d 719). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bertan v. Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1987
131 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Bertan v. Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center

Case Details

Full title:ELAINE BERTAN, Appellant, v. RICHMOND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER…

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

Date published: Jun 29, 1987

Citations

131 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
517 N.Y.S.2d 165

Citing Cases

Smith v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

CPLR §4405, titled "Time and judge before whom post-trial motion made," provides that a "motion under this…

Piotrowski v. Patel

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial ( see, CPLR…