Hambsch v. New York City Transit Authority
Decision Date | 11 September 1984 |
Citation | 469 N.E.2d 516,480 N.Y.S.2d 195,63 N.Y.2d 723 |
Parties | , 469 N.E.2d 516 Loretta HAMBSCH, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. 101 A.D.2d 807, 475 N.Y.S.2d 467.
Plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained when she was struck by defendant's bus, asserting her right to common-law recovery because she sustained a "serious injury" as defined by subdivision 4 of section 671 of the Insurance Law. The Appellate Division found that her evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case and reversed the judgment of Special Term entered upon a jury verdict.
Under the "No-Fault Law" (Insurance Law, §§ 670-678), there is "no right of recovery for non-economic loss, except in the case of a serious injury, or for basic economic loss" (Insurance Law, § 673, subd. 1). In this case plaintiff presented evidence of three types of "serious injury"--a fracture, a permanent loss of use of a body function, and a nonpermanent impairment that prevented her from performing substantially all of her usual and customary activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days immediately following the accident. The jury found for plaintiff on the first two of these types of serious injury and against her on the third.
Plaintiff's own evidence contradicted her claim that she had sustained a permanent loss of use of a body function and the Appellate Division correctly held that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury based on a fracture (see Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088).
With respect to the claimed fracture, plaintiff's physician testified that, based on his reading of an X ray of her lower back, she was suffering from spondylolisthesis, a misalignment of the vertebra. It was error to permit the doctor's testimony without producing the X rays and introducing them into evidence (see Marion v. Coon Constr. Co., 216 N.Y. 178, 182, 110 N.E. 444; Richter v. Trailways of New England, 28 A.D.2d 737, 738, 282 N.Y.S.2d 148; Cellamare v. Third Ave. Tr. Corp., 273 App.Div. 260, 77 N.Y.S.2d 91). There was no objection to his testimony, however, and the matter is not preserved for our review.
Plaintiff's physician also testified that spondylolisthesis is caused by a fracture. The basis for this medical opinion was a discussion two days prior to trial with a radiologist who held that opinion because of an unknown study that he did not participate in. This evidence was objected to and the Appellate Division correctly found this opinion testimony inadmissible.
"It is settled and unquestioned law that opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness" (Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N.Y.2d 643, 646, 187 N.Y.S.2d 1, 159 N.E.2d 348; Lopato v. Kinney Rent-A-Car, 73 A.D.2d 565, 566, 423 N.Y.S.2d 42). In People v. Sugden, 35 N.Y.2d 453, 363 N.Y.S.2d 923, 323 N.E.2d 169, we recognized two limited exceptions to this rule and held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Snyder
...to the witness” or fell within a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule [91 A.D.3d 1214] ( Hambsch v. New York City Tr. Auth., 63 N.Y.2d 723, 725–726, 480 N.Y.S.2d 195, 469 N.E.2d 516 [1984]; see CPLR 4518; CPL 60.10; People v. Wright, 81 A.D.3d 1161, 1164, 918 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2011], l......
-
Barbero v. CSX Transp.
...and observations from the site visit supply an adequate factual basis for these opinions (see Hambsch v. New York City Tr. Auth. , 63 N.Y.2d 723, 725, 480 N.Y.S.2d 195, 469 N.E.2d 516 [1984] ; Adair v. Tully-Kuzman , 91 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 936 N.Y.S.2d 785 [3d Dept. 2012] ). Further, Marlett......
-
Barbero v. CSX Transp.
... ... City of New York , 32 A.D.3d 91, 103 [1st Dept 2006], ... affd ... authority granted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act ... ( see 49 ... basis for these opinions ( see Hambsch v New York City Tr ... Auth. , 63 N.Y.2d 723, 725 [1984]; ... ...
-
Lee v. N.Y. Hosp. Queens
...law that opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness” ( Hambsch v. New York City Tr. Auth., 63 N.Y.2d 723, 725, 480 N.Y.S.2d 195, 469 N.E.2d 516 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N.Y.2d 643, 646, 187 N.Y.S.2d 1, 159 N......
-
Photographs, recordings, & x-rays
...a physician who has seen the image or report may not testify as to what it shows. See Hambsch v. New York City Transit Authority , 63 N.Y.2d 723, 480 N.Y.S.2d 195 (1984); Wagman v. Bradshaw , 292 A.D.2d 84, 739 N.Y.S.2d 421 (2nd Dept. 2002) (written MRI report prepared by a non-testifying h......
-
Expert witnesses
... Facts that are established on the record or that are personally known to the expert. Hambsch v. New York City Transit Authority , 63 N.Y.2d 723, 480 N.Y.S.2d 195 (1984); People v. Jones , 73 N.Y.2d 427, 541 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1989); Mosley v. E.H.J. LLC, 159 A.D.3d 434, 71 N.Y.S.3d 65 (1st Dep......
-
Expert witnesses
... Facts that are established on the record or that are personally known to the expert. Hambsch v. New York City Transit Authority , 63 N.Y.2d 723, 480 N.Y.S.2d 195 (1984); People v. Jones , 73 N.Y.2d 427, 541 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1989); Mosley v. E.H.J. LLC, 159 A.D.3d 434, 71 N.Y.S.3d 65 (1st Dep......
-
Hearsay
...may be admissible pursuant to the “professional reliability” exception, see §§16:45 and 16:117; Hambsch v. New York City Transit Auth. , 63 N.Y.2d 723, 469 N.E.2d 516 (1984); Hinlicky v. Dreyfuss, 6 N.Y.3d 636, 848 N.E.2d 1285 (2006); Tornatore v. Cohen, 2018 WL 2751382 (4th Dept. 2018) (te......