Lillis v. D'Souza
| Decision Date | 07 June 1991 |
| Citation | 572 N.Y.S.2d 136,174 A.D.2d 976 |
| Parties | Karen LILLIS and Thomas Lillis, Appellants, v. Marcelino F. D'SOUZA, M.D., and Health Care Plan, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Smith, Keller, Hayes & Miner by J. Michael Hayes, Buffalo, for appellants.
Damon & Morey by Iris Schifeling, Buffalo, for respondents.
Before DILLON, P.J., and DENMAN, LAWTON, LOWERY and DAVIS, JJ.
We reject plaintiffs' contention that the trial court should have precluded defendants' expert from testifying at trial because defendants did not respond until the second day of trial to the demand for disclosure of the report of the expert. CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) does not require a party to retain an expert at any specific time nor does it mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute. The record reveals that the expert was retained only a week prior to trial and there is no evidence of intentional or willful nondisclosure by defendants. The expert testimony offered no surprises, and plaintiffs have not demonstrated any prejudice. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert to testify for defendants (see, Saar v. Brown & Odabashian, P.C., 139 Misc.2d 328, 333-335, 527 N.Y.S.2d 685; Dunn v. Medina Mem. Hosp., 131 Misc.2d 971, 974, 502 N.Y.S.2d 633; see also, Siegel, N.Y.Prac. § 348A [2d ed.].
In addition, the trial court properly rejected plaintiffs' request to charge the jury on the inferences that may be drawn from the destruction of evidence because, in fact, there was no showing that any evidence had been destroyed (see generally, PJI 1:77; Richardson, Evidence § 91 [Prince 10th ed.].
Finally, there is no merit to plaintiffs' contention that the jury's verdict for defendants was against the weight of the evidence. A jury's verdict is not against the weight of the evidence unless utterly irrational and unsupported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145; Monahan v. Comenale, 124 A.D.2d 1031, 509 N.Y.S.2d 215; see also, Petrovski v. Fornes, 125 A.D.2d 972, 510 N.Y.S.2d 366, lv. denied, 69 N.Y.2d 608, 514 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 507 N.E.2d 322). This trial was a prototypical battle of the experts, and the jury's acceptance of defendants' case was a rational and fair interpretation of the evidence.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Begley v. City of N.Y.
...witness information ‘at any specific time’ ” ( Aversa v. Taubes, 194 A.D.2d 580, 582, 598 N.Y.S.2d 801, quoting Lillis v. D'Souza, 174 A.D.2d 976, 976, 572 N.Y.S.2d 136;see Rivers v. Birnbaum, 102 A.D.3d 26, 35, 953 N.Y.S.2d 232). Thus, “the fact that the disclosure of an expert pursuant to......
-
Rivers v. Birnbaum
...because of noncompliancewith the statute’ ” ( Aversa v. Taubes, 194 A.D.2d 580, 582, 598 N.Y.S.2d 801, quoting Lillis v. D'Souza, 174 A.D.2d 976, 976, 572 N.Y.S.2d 136;seeDavid D. Siegel, New York Practice, § 348A, at 583 [5th ed.] [noting that CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) “sets forth no particular t......
-
Monzon v. Porter
...the experts, and the jury's acceptance of defendant['s] case was a rational and fair interpretation of the evidence" ( Lillis v. D'Souza, 174 A.D.2d 976, 977, 572 N.Y.S.2d 136 [4th Dept. 1991], lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 858, 575 N.Y.S.2d 454, 580 N.E.2d 1057 [1991] ; see Holstein v. Community Gen......
-
Citron v. Northern Dutchess Hosp.
...has been no demonstration of prejudice (see, CPLR 3101[d][1][i]; Putchlawski v. Diaz, 192 A.D.2d 444, 597 N.Y.S.2d 10; Lillis v. D'Souza, 174 A.D.2d 976, 572 N.Y.S.2d 136, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 858, 575 N.Y.S.2d 454, 580 N.E.2d 1057; McDougald v. Garber, 135 A.D.2d 80, 94-95, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19......