Hamilton v. Raftopoulos
| Decision Date | 28 October 1991 |
| Parties | Howard HAMILTON, Appellant, v. Dionisios RAFTOPOULOS, et al., Defendants, Keith C. Apuzzo, M.D., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Russo, Fox & Karl, Hauppauge (Kevin Fox, of counsel), for appellant.
Vardaro, Johs & Helwig (Martin, Clearwater & Bell, New York City [Barbara D. Goldberg], of counsel), for respondents.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, O'BRIEN and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered August 29, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Keith C. Apuzzo, the Flashner Medical Partnership, and the Doctor's Officenter on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff contends that the Trial Judge improperly sustained the defendants' objection to the introduction into evidence of part of the examination before trial of the defendant Dr. Keith C. Apuzzo. Dr. Apuzzo, called as a witness on the plaintiff's behalf, was asked a question by the plaintiff's attorney with regard to an apparently prior inconsistent statement he had made at his examination before trial. The attorney for the respondents objected to the introduction of the statement made at the examination before trial on the ground that the statement had "nothing whatsoever to do" with the question and answer that Dr. Apuzzo had given at trial. The objection was followed by an off-the-record bench conference. The objection was then sustained. The plaintiff did not put any arguments in favor of denying the objection on the record, and apparently made no further attempt to admit the statement. Under these circumstances, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4017).
Further, the plaintiff's argument that the court erred when it failed to charge the jury in accordance with his written requests is also unpreserved for appellate review since the plaintiff raised only a general exception to the court's charge (see, Stern v. Waldbaum, Inc., No. 10, 109 A.D.2d 789, 486 N.Y.S.2d 92; Rogers v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 29 A.D.2d 47, 285 N.Y.S.2d 803, aff'd 22 N.Y.2d 918, 295 N.Y.S.2d 47, 242 N.E.2d 84).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Essex Ins. Co. v. Vickers
...“no additional insureds,” was ambiguous, as it failed to mention the Lynn defendants specifically ( see Gedan v. Home Ins. Co., 176 A.D.2d at 916, 575 N.Y.S.2d 528), and provided no “specific reason or reasons for” conditioning renewal upon the removal of the Lynn defendants as additional i......
-
Saratoga Spa & Bath, Inc. v. Beeche Systems Corp.
...contention that it excepted to the court's ruling during an off-the-record discussion is unavailing (see, Hamilton v. Raftopoulos, 176 A.D.2d 916, 917, 575 N.Y.S.2d 531, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 753, 580 N.Y.S.2d 199, 588 N.E.2d 97). In any event, as Campbell's cross claim and affirmative defen......
-
Aronov v. Kanarek, 2015–11744
...194, 194, 826 N.Y.S.2d 214 ; Saratoga Spa & Bath v. Beeche Sys. Corp., 230 A.D.2d 326, 331, 656 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; Hamilton v. Raftopoulos, 176 A.D.2d 916, 917, 575 N.Y.S.2d 531 ).The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the ......
-
Nilsen v. Franklin Dental Health
...on appeal ( see e.g. Silverstein v. Marine Midland Trust Co. of NY, 35 A.D.3d 840, 828 N.Y.S.2d 131 [2006]; Hamilton v. Raftopoulos, 176 A.D.2d 916, 575 N.Y.S.2d 531 [1991]; Stern v. Waldbaum, Inc., No. 10, 109 A.D.2d 789, 486 N.Y.S.2d 92 [1985] ). Here, the record does not indicate that pl......
-
Attorney conduct
...126 (1991) (general objections are insuicient to preserve a legal issue for review by the Court of Appeals); Hamilton v. Raftopoulos , 176 A.D.2d 916, 575 N.Y.S.2d 531 (2d Dept. 1991) (in a medical malpractice case, objection that was sustained following an of-the-record discussion, was not......
-
Table of cases
...§16:7 Hamilton v. New Branford Inc., 289 A.D.2d 87, 735 N.Y.S.2d 22 (1st Dept. 2001), § 18:60 Hamilton v. Raftopoulos, 176 A.D.2d 916, 575 N.Y.S.2d 531 (2d Dept. 1991), § 18:20 Hammond v. Alenka Construction, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 773, 703 N.Y.S.2d 332 (4th Dept. 2000), § 16:140 Handwerker v. Ci......
-
Attorney conduct
...126 (1991) (general objections are insuicient to preserve a legal issue for review by the Court of Appeals); Hamilton v. Raftopoulos , 176 A.D.2d 916, 575 N.Y.S.2d 531 (2d Dept. 1991) (in a medical malpractice case, objection that was sustained following an of-the-record discussion, was not......
-
Attorney conduct
...126 (1991) (general objections are insufficient to preserve a legal issue for review by the Court of Appeals); Hamilton v. Raftopoulos , 176 A.D.2d 916, 575 N.Y.S.2d 531 (2d Dept. 1991) (in a medical malpractice case, objection that was sustained following an off-the-record discussion, was ......