Dayanim v. Unis
| Decision Date | 26 March 1991 |
| Parties | Farangis DAYANIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. George UNIS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, CARRO, WALLACH and KUPFERMAN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Vincent Bradley, J.), rendered March 23, 1990, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this medical malpractice action, in which the jury found in favor of the defendant, plaintiff attributes error to various trial rulings and jury instructions. Initially, plaintiff contends that it was error to give a missing witness charge with respect to her treating physicians. To the contrary, it is well settled that a missing witness charge is warranted for the failure to call a treating physician as a witness at trial, unless the party opposing the inference shows that the witness is either unavailable, not under his control, or that the witnesses' testimony would be cumulative (Moore v. Johnson, 147 A.D.2d 621, 538 N.Y.S.2d 28). Plaintiff did not sustain her burden in this regard. Plaintiff's failure to object to the court's charge on drawing an adverse inference against defendant, due to a lost audiogram that one of defendant's witnesses performed on plaintiff, constitutes a waiver of the issue. Therefore we need not consider whether the court's missing documents charge in that respect was proper. (Chapman v. 39th Street Realty Corp., 26 A.D.2d 806, 274 N.Y.S.2d 172.)
Plaintiff failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the office records of her treating physicians by calling a witness with personal knowledge of the doctors' business practices and procedures. (Hefte v. Bellin, 137 A.D.2d 406, 524 N.Y.S.2d 42.)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request to reopen the case after she had rested to call a treating physician as a rebuttal witness (see King v. Burkowski, 155 A.D.2d 285, 547 N.Y.S.2d 48), as plaintiff never adequately identified the specific witness sought to be called nor indicated whether such witness would be immediately available.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of The Application of Jaime Gongora v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ.
...796, 502 N.E.2d 583; Minichiello v. Supper Club, 296 A.D.2d 350, 352, 745 N.Y.S.2d 24 (1st Dep't 2002); Dayanim v. Unis, 171 A.D.2d 579, 580, 567 N.Y.S.2d 673 (1st Dep't 1991). Although petitioner raised respondent's failure to present Student A as a witness, and the arbitrator observed tha......
-
Garcia v. Portuondo
...an individual with personal knowledge of the record-keeping practices of the subject business, see, e.g., Dayanim v. Unis, 171 A.D.2d 579, 580, 567 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674 (1st Dep't 1991), "[t]he absence of specific statutory identification of who is a competent witness leaves room for the argum......
-
Garcia v. Portuondo
...an individual with personal knowledge of the record-keeping practices of the subject business, see, e.g., Dayanim v. Unis, 171 A.D.2d 579, 580, 567 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674 (1st Dep't 1991), "[t]he absence of specific statutory identification of who is a competent witness leaves room for the argum......
-
Dukes v. Rotem
...that the witness is either unavailable, not under his control, or that the witness's testimony would be cumulative" (Dayanim v. Unis, 171 A.D.2d 579, 580, 567 N.Y.S.2d 673, citing Moore v. Johnson, 147 A.D.2d 621, 538 N.Y.S.2d The dissent suggests that Dayanim v. Unis, supra, is inapplicabl......
-
17.7 A. Who Can Authenticate Medical Records?
...fee may justify allowing an employee of the physician to authenticate the records or reports.461--------Notes:[458] . Dayanim v. Unis, 171 A.D.2d 579, 567 N.Y.S.2d 673 (1st Dep’t 1991) (medical malpractice action); see also Citibank, N.A. v. Cabrera, 130 A.D.3d 861, 14 N.Y.S.3d 420 (2d Dep’......