Opinion
10-24-2017
Lazaro Joel MONTAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Sally H. ABOUEL–ELA, Defendant–Respondent.
Ogen & Sedaghati, P.C., New York (Eitan A. Ogen of Counsel), for appellant. Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage (Andrea E. Ferrucci of Counsel), for respondent.
Ogen & Sedaghati, P.C., New York (Eitan A. Ogen of Counsel), for appellant.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage (Andrea E. Ferrucci of Counsel), for respondent.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated conduct by defendant's counsel that would warrant reversal. Defendant's counsel was properly permitted to cross-examine plaintiff's expert rebuttal witness about the circumstances surrounding his suspension from chiropractic school for falsely reporting that he had seen patients, a matter relevant to his credibility (see generally Badr v. Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629, 634, 555 N.Y.S.2d 249, 554 N.E.2d 890 [1990] ; Spanier v. New York City Tr. Auth., 222 A.D.2d 219, 220, 634 N.Y.S.2d 122 [1st Dept.1995] ). Although the conduct was 30 years ago, the witness opened the door to its relevancy by claiming that his expert knowledge of biomechanics came, in part, from his training as a chiropractor. Counsel's comments about the plaintiff's expert in summations were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment (see Selzer v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.3d 157, 163, 952 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept.2012] ).
In any event, the purportedly offensive comments did not "create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair" ( Wilson v. City of New York, 65 A.D.3d 906, 908, 885 N.Y.S.2d 279 [1st Dept.2009] ; cf. O'Neil v. Klass, 36 A.D.3d 677, 829 N.Y.S.2d 144 [2d Dept.2007] ).We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
RENWICK, J.P., KAPNICK, GESMER, and KERN, JJ., concur.