Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 01 May 1995 |
| Citation | 215 A.D.2d 362,626 N.Y.S.2d 240 |
| Parties | Angela RODRIGUEZ, Respondent-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York City (Herbert Rubin, Shira A. Scheindlin, and Miriam Skolnik, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Rubenstein and Flatow, Brooklyn (Neal Forman, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered December 18, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict as to liability, found the defendant 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, and, upon a jury verdict as to damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $875,000 for past pain and suffering, and (2) an order of the same court, dated January 22, 1993, which denied its motion to set aside the verdict as to damages, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the judgment as awarded her no damages for future pain and suffering.
ORDERED that prior to any new trial, the plaintiff shall submit to an examination by a qualified medical expert at a time and place to be set forth in a written notice by the defendant of at least 10 days, or at such time and place as the parties may agree.
The plaintiff claimed she was injured as she descended broken steps in front of 868 Park Avenue in Brooklyn. There was no banister bordering those steps, but there was a fence nearby.
At the liability trial, the defendant attempted to impeach the plaintiff's credibility as to where and how the accident occurred, by introducing evidence of a verified notice of claim, signed by her, which stated that the accident occurred in front of 878 Park Avenue. The notice of claim was clearly admissible under CPLR 4514, which permits impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement "made in a writing subscribed" by a witness (CPLR 4514). Although the plaintiff claimed that she could not read the notice of claim because she did not understand English, and that no one read it to her, these factors went to the weight and not the admissibility of the notice of claim (see, Larkin v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 205 N.Y. 267, 98 N.E. 465).
The trial court also excluded portions of the plaintiff's testimony at an examination before trial, wherein the plaintiff stated, inter alia, that she was holding onto a banister when she "slipped" down the stairs, and fell because her friend "blocked me in the front". Indeed, the trial court excluded from evidence any answers by the plaintiff to questions that called for a "narrative answer", on the ground that the "usual stipulation" at an examination before trial is that "[a]ll objections as to form [are] reserved for the trial court". The plaintiff's testimony at her examination before trial was clearly admissible under CPLR 3117, which permits "the deposition of a party" to be used "for any purpose" by an adverse party (CPLR 3117[a][2]. The trial court's assertion that all objections as to the form of questions posed at an examination before trial are generally reserved for the trial court is clearly not the case (see, Derico v. Pancrazio A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClain v. Lockport Memorial Hosp.
...properly impeached with her statement in a notice of claim that she had received such instructions (see, Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 215 A.D.2d 362, 363, 626 N.Y.S.2d 240). The jury verdict in favor of defendants is not against the weight of the evidence. In a case such as this,......
-
Consolidated Sewing Machine Corp. v. Sanford, 2008 NY Slip Op 30921(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/27/2008)
...of the question) must be made at the deposition (CPLR § 3115[b]), otherwise they are waived at trial (see Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority, 215 A.D.2d 362 [2nd Dept., 1995]). However, defense counsel should simply make the objection and succinctly state the basis for same withou......
-
Robert Hunt Co. v. S & R Coachworks, Inc.
... ... Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, dated November 14, 1994, and the matter is remitted to the ... ...
-
Witness examination
...the statement was made under oath or in a writing signed by the witness. CPLR 4514; Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority , 215 A.D.2d 362, 626 N.Y.S.2d 240 (2d Dept. 1995). Generally, such prior inconsistent statements are only admissible on the issue of witness credibility, and not......
-
Witness examination
...the statement was made under oath or in a writing signed by the witness. CPLR 4514; Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority , 215 A.D.2d 362, 626 N.Y.S.2d 240 (2d Dept. 1995). Generally, such prior inconsistent statements are only admissible on the issue of witness credibility, and not......
-
Witness examination
...the statement was made under oath or in a writing signed by the witness. CPLR 4514; Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority , 215 A.D.2d 362, 626 N.Y.S.2d 240 (2d Dept. 1995). Generally, such prior inconsistent statements are only admissible on the issue of witness credibility, and not......
-
Table of cases
...Authority, 209 A.D.2d 260, 618 N.Y.S.2d 352 (1st Dept. 1994), §§ 18:40, 19:90, 19:110 Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority, 215 A.D.2d 362, 626 N.Y.S.2d 240 (2d Dept. 1995), § 15:60 Rodriguez v. Piccone, 5 A.D.3d 757, 774 N.Y.S.2d 185 (2d Dept. 2004), § 5:160 Rodriguez v. Triborough......