Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1996 |
| Parties | Wilmer SANDERS, Plaintiff-Respondent, and Reba Sanders, Plaintiff, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Arnold E. DiJoseph, III, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Richard Bakalor, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and MILONAS, WILLIAMS, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joseph Teresi, J.), entered July 13, 1995, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $456,338, and bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice entered on or about July 14, 1995, which denied defendant's motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.
Defendant's failure to present testimony of an expert witness, after giving notice of his identity and the subject matter of his proposed testimony, showing his familiarity with the cause of the elevator accident, warranted a missing witness charge (see, Camillo v. Geer, 185 A.D.2d 192, 196, 587 N.Y.S.2d 306).
Plaintiffs' expert witness was properly permitted to testify as to the adequacy of defendant's maintenance of the subject elevator, since the expert testimony "help[ed] to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror" (De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717). This test applies to expert testimony "regarding both the ultimate questions and those of lesser significance" (People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 432-433, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110, 458 N.E.2d 351).
Defendant's claims concerning comments made by plaintiffs' counsel on summation were not preserved for appellate review by timely objections, and we decline to consider them on this appeal. The jury's award of $270,000 for past and future pain and suffering does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation for plaintiff-respondent's injuries (CPLR 5501[c] ). Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.V. v. R.V.
...had such witnesses testified, their testimony would not have been favorable to Plaintiff's case. See, e.g., Sanders v. Ortis Elevator Co., 232 A.D.2d 327, 328 (1st Dept.1996) (“Defendant's failure to present testimony of an expert witness, after giving notice of his identity and the subject......
-
Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co.
...813, 679 N.E.2d 644 Wilmer Sanders, Reba Sanders v. Otis Elevator Company NO. 49 Court of Appeals of New York Mar 27, 1997 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO GRANTED OR DENIED. Denied. ...
-
Table of cases
...and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 170 A.D.2d 402, 566 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dept. 1991), § 19:90 Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co., 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996), §§ 16:10, 16:100, 16:120 Sansivero v. Garz, 20 A.D.2d 723, 247 N.Y.S.2d 596 (2d Dept. 1964), § 17:90 Sant......
-
Expert witnesses
...18 N.Y.3d 222, 960 N.E.2d 419 (2011); Brullo v. Schiro , 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co. , 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New York City Housing Authority , 258 A.D.2d 394, 685 N.Y.S. 691 (1st Dept. 1999) (plai......
-
Expert witnesses
...18 N.Y.3d 222, 960 N.E.2d 419 (2011); Brullo v. Schiro , 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co. , 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New York City Housing Authority , 258 A.D.2d 394, 685 N.Y.S. 691 (1st Dept. 1999) (plai......
-
Expert witnesses
...N.Y.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983); Brullo v. Schiro , 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co. , 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New York City Housing Authority , 258 A.D.2d 394, 685 N.Y.S. 691 (1st Dept. 1999) (plain......