Cor Canada Road Company, LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engineers, Pllc
Decision Date | 17 November 2006 |
Docket Number | CA 06-01610. |
Citation | 825 N.Y.S.2d 601,34 A.D.3d 1364,2006 NY Slip Op 08589 |
Parties | COR CANADA ROAD COMPANY, LLC, et al., Appellants, v. DUNN & SGROMO ENGINEERS, PLLC, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Carni, J.), entered November 10, 2005. The order and judgment, among other things, granted judgment in favor of defendant on its counterclaim.
It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment in this professional malpractice action entered upon a jury verdict of no cause of action with respect to plaintiffs and finding in favor of defendant on its counterclaim. We reject plaintiffs' contention that Supreme Court erred in permitting defendant's attorney to use extrinsic evidence to cross-examine a witness with respect to the credibility of that witness. Although it is "well settled that extrinsic evidence introduced solely to impeach credibility on a collateral issue is, with special exceptions, inadmissible" (Halloran v Virginia Chems., 41 NY2d 386, 390 [1977]), here the extrinsic evidence previously was introduced by plaintiffs as part of their case-in-chief. Plaintiffs further contend that the court abused its discretion in allowing that cross-examination and that a new trial thus is required. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court thereby abused its discretion, we nevertheless conclude that a new trial is not required because any such "error did not adversely affect a substantial right of the plaintiff[s]" (Getlin v St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 117 AD2d 707, 709 [1986]; see CPLR 2002).
Contrary to the further contention of plaintiffs, the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding one of their experts from testifying concerning certain matters on the ground that such testimony would be cumulative. "`Whether [testimony] should be excluded as cumulative is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court' and the exclusion of [that] testimony constituted a sound exercise of discretion in this case" (Clemons v Vanderpool, 289 AD2d 1078, 1079 [2001]; cf. Shafran v St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 264 AD2d 553, 556 [1999]).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and conclude that they are without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sheridan v. Sheridan
...and the errors “ ‘did not adversely affect a substantial right of the [father]’ ” (Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC, 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 ; Shahram v. Horwitz, 5 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 773 N.Y.S.2d 642 ).129 A.D.3d 1568Contrary to the father's further conten......
-
Barbero v. CSX Transp.
...(see SpecFin Mgt. LLC v. Elhadidy , 201 A.D.3d 31, 37, 158 N.Y.S.3d 366 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC , 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 [4th Dept. 2006] ), the Court will limit Weames’ testimony to his kinesiological and ergodynamic analyses an......
-
Barbero v. CSX Transp.
...as cumulative (see SpecFin Mgt. LLC v Elhadidy, 201 A.D.3d 31, 37 [3d Dept 2021]; Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC, 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365 [4th Dept 2006]), the Court will limit Weames' testimony to his kinesiological and ergodynamic analyses and ultimate conclusion based on......
-
Siemucha v. Garrison
...any such ‘error did not adversely affect a substantial right of the [defendants]’ ” (Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC, 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601). The court properly denied defendants' posttrial motion seeking to set aside the verdict as against the weight of......
-
Table of cases
...§ 15:70 Corbey v. Allam, 58 A.D.3d 667, 871 N.Y.S.2d 712 (2d Dept. 2009), § 7:90 Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC , 34 A.D.3d 1364, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 (4th Dept. 2006), § 6:60 Cordeiro v. TS Midtown Holdings , LLC, 87 A.D.3d 904, 931 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1st Dept. 2011), § 18:60 Co......
-
Confusing, prejudicial, & cumulative
...decision to allow testimony is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the court. Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC , 34 A.D.3d 1364, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 (4th Dept. 2006); Mayi v. 1551 St. Nicholas LLC, 6 A.D.3d 219, 774 N.Y.S.2d 528 (1st Dept. 2004); Berry v. Jewish Bd. Of......
-
Confusing, prejudicial, & cumulative
...to allow testimony is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the court. Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engineers, PLLC , 34 A.D.3d 1364, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 (4th Dept. 2006); Mayi v. 1551 St. Nicholas , 6 A.D.3d 219, 774 N.Y.S.2d 528 (1st Dept. 2004); Berry v. Jewish Bd. of Family &......
-
Confusing, prejudicial, & cumulative
...decision to allow testimony is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the court. Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC , 34 A.D.3d 1364, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 (4th Dept. 2006); Mayi v. 1551 St. Nicholas LLC, 6 A.D.3d 219, 774 N.Y.S.2d 528 (1st Dept. 2004); Berry v. Jewish Bd. Of......