Brullo v. Schiro
| Decision Date | 05 May 1997 |
| Citation | 239 A.D.2d 309,657 N.Y.S.2d 92 |
| Parties | Michael BRULLO, Respondent, v. Diane M. SCHIRO, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James J. Thornton, Staten Island (Zachary & Tracy, P.C. [Deborah C. Zachary] of counsel), for appellants.
Schapiro & Reich, Lindenhurst (Steven M. Schapiro, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, SANTUCCI and ALTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Diane M. Schiro and Joseph W. Schiro appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), entered March 12, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is against them and in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $425,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial as against the defendants Diane M. Schiro and Joseph W. Schiro limited to the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event.
The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the appellants' accident reconstruction expert. The expert's opinion that the plaintiff was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident and that he would not have sustained facial injuries had he utilized the available restraint system was sufficiently based upon facts in the record and, therefore, was admissible (see, Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N.Y.2d 643, 646, 187 N.Y.S.2d 1, 159 N.E.2d 348; Richardson, Evidence § 7-308 [Farrell 11th ed] ). Since the exclusion of that testimony prevented the appellants from attempting to prove that the plaintiff should not recover for those injuries, a new trial on the issue of damages is required.
In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the appellants' remaining contention.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Media Logic Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
...684 N.Y.S.2d 143, 706 N.E.2d 1167), since the record contains a proper foundation to support Keeley's opinion (see, Brullo v. Schiro, 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92). Moreover, plaintiffs provided substantial and undisputed evidence eliminating any other potential source of ignition in the......
-
People v. Morency
...shooting reconstruction expert were sufficiently based upon facts in the record and, therefore, were admissible ( see Brullo v. Schiro, 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92). Any alleged weaknesses in the expert's testimony went to the credibility and weight of the evidence rather than to its ad......
- Celestin v. Delta Intern. Machinery Corp.
-
Justice v. Mendon Leasing Corp.
...Hagstrom, 5 N.Y.2d 643, 187 N.Y.S.2d 1, 159 N.E.2d 348; Andaloro v. Town of Ramapo, --- A.D.2d ----, 661 N.Y.S.2d 285; Brullo v. Schiro, 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92). Here, the expert's opinions were sufficiently based upon facts either in the record or personally known to THOMPSON, J.P......
-
Expert witnesses
...People v. Cronin , 60 N.Y.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983); People v. Rivers , 18 N.Y.3d 222, 960 N.E.2d 419 (2011); Brullo v. Schiro , 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co. , 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New York ......
-
Expert witnesses
...People v. Cronin , 60 N.Y.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983); People v. Rivers , 18 N.Y.3d 222, 960 N.E.2d 419 (2011); Brullo v. Schiro , 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co. , 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New York ......
-
Expert witnesses
...People v. Rivers , 18 N.Y.3d 222, 960 N.E.2d 419 (2011); People v. Cronin , 60 N.Y.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983); Brullo v. Schiro , 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co. , 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New York ......
-
Expert witnesses
...and no better evidence than such opinion is available. People v. Cronin , 60 N.Y.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983); Brullo v. Schiro , 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co. , 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New York Ci......