Mead v. Reilly
| Citation | 238 A.D.2d 484,656 N.Y.S.2d 653 |
| Parties | Keith MEAD, et al., Appellants, v. Janine REILLY, et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 21 April 1997 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard J. Katz (Carol R. Finocchio, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
McCarl & Harris, Circleville, (James P. Harris, of counsel), for respondents.
Before PIZZUTO, J.P., and SANTUCCI, JOY and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sklaver, J.H.O.), dated April 8, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the defendants, is against them dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, entered June 3, 1996, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict.
ORDERED that the judgment and order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The jury's verdict was amply supported by the record. Both the injured plaintiff and the defendant driver testified that the accident occurred during pouring rain as both parties approached a blind curve in the road from opposite directions. The plaintiffs did not offer any proof that the defendant driver was going faster than 15 to 20 miles per hour or that her car skidded out of control due to an error in driving. The plaintiffs merely offered their expert's conclusory opinion that the defendant driver was not operating her vehicle properly under the conditions. Under these circumstances, it was not against the weight of the credible evidence for the jury to find that the defendants were not negligent in the happening of the accident (see generally, Mangano v. New York City Hous. Auth., 218 A.D.2d 787, 631 N.Y.S.2d 54).
The plaintiffs' contention in their posttrial motion that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the police officer to testify as to his own observation is without merit. The police officer testified that he observed that the road was wet and concluded that this was a contributing factor in the accident. The trial court properly permitted the officer to testify without having qualified him as an expert, since his testimony consisted of observations not requiring any particular expertise (see, Kapinos v. Highland Falls Volunteer Ambulance Corp., 143 A.D.2d 332, 333, 532 N.Y.S.2d 416; Hileman v. Schmitt's Garage, 58 A.D.2d 1029, 397 N.Y.S.2d 501).
There is also no merit to the plaintiffs' claim that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hoover v. New Holland N. Am., Inc.
-
People v. Brockenshire
...concerned his observations of physical evidence at the crime scene, testimony "not requiring any particular expertise" (Mead v. Reilly, 238 A.D.2d 484, 656 N.Y.S.2d 653, lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 90 N.Y.2d 930, 664 N.Y.S.2d 263, 686 N.E.2d Defendant was not denied a fair tria......
-
Mead v. Reilly
...MEAD, et al., Appellants, v. Janine REILLY, et al., Respondents. Court of Appeals of New York. Sept. 23, 1997. Reported below: --- A.D.2d ----, 656 N.Y.S.2d 653. Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of appella......
-
Witness examination
...properly excluded the tenant’s lay opinion about whether the repair that would have prevented his accident was “basic.” Mead v. Reilly, 238 A.D.2d 484, 656 N.Y.S.2d 653 (2d Dept. 1997). A police officer could state that the road was wet, and that the road’s condition contributed to the acci......
-
Witness examination
...properly excluded the tenant’s lay opinion about whether the repair that would have prevented his accident was “basic.” Mead v. Reilly , 238 A.D.2d 484, 656 N.Y.S.2d 653 (2d Dept. 1997). A police oicer could state that the road was wet, and that the road’s condition contributed to the accid......
-
Witness examination
...properly excluded the tenant’s lay opinion about whether the repair that would have prevented his accident was “basic.” Mead v. Reilly , 238 A.D.2d 484, 656 N.Y.S.2d 653 (2d Dept. 1997). A police oicer could state that the road was wet, and that the road’s condition contributed to the accid......
-
Witness examination
...properly excluded the tenant’s lay opinion about whether the repair that would have prevented his accident was “basic.” Mead v. Reilly , 238 A.D.2d 484, 656 N.Y.S.2d 653 (2d Dept. 1997). A police officer could state that the road was wet, and that the road’s condition contributed to the acc......