You are here: / / Error to Deny Missing Witness Jury Instruction on Ground Such Testimony...
,

Error to Deny Missing Witness Jury Instruction on Ground Such Testimony Would Be Cumulative—Only Testimony of a Party’s Own Witnesses Can Be Deemed Cumulative, Not, as Here, the Testimony of the Opposing Party’s Witnesses

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the trial court erred in refusing to grant the plaintiff’s request for a missing witness jury instruction.  Plaintiff claimed to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident. Questions were raised about whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident.  The defense failed to call any of the doctors hired by the defense to examine plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s request for the missing witness charge was denied on the ground the defense-doctors’ testimony would be merely cumulative.  The Court of Appeals ruled that testimony can be deemed cumulative only with respect to a party’s own witnesses, not with respect to witnesses under the opposing party’s control:

The appropriate analysis is found in Leahy v Allen (221 AD2d 88 [3d Dept 1996]), in which the [3rd] Department held that “one person’s testimony properly may be considered cumulative of another’s only when both individuals are testifying in favor of the same party” (id. at 92), noting that to hold “otherwise would lead to an anomalous result.  Indeed, if the testimony of a defense physician who had examined a plaintiff and confirmed the plaintiff’s assertion of a serious injury were deemed to be cumulative to the evidence offered by the plaintiff, thereby precluding the missing witness charge, there would never be an occasion to invoke such charge” (id.).  Accordingly, our holding is that an uncalled witness’s testimony may properly be considered cumulative only when it is cumulative of testimony or other evidence favoring the party controlling the uncalled witness.

In short, a witness’s testimony may not be ruled cumulative simply on the ground that it would be cumulative of the opposing witness’s testimony.  Because the record indicates that the latter was Supreme Court’s rationale in this case, Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s request for a missing witness charge. De Vito v Feliciano, 195, CtApp 11-26-13

 

You might also like
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.
THE PEBBLES ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SLIPPED MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “FOREIGN SUBSTANCE” AND A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MECHANICS OF THE 30-DAY COURT-OF-APPEALS “APPEAL CLOCK” EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRONIC FILING (CT APP).
HEARSAY STATEMENT BY AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST.
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WAS HANDLED PROPERLY, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY OF THE JUROR TO OBTAIN AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE THE JUROR COULD BE FAIR (CT APP).
Loan Agreement Constituted a “Building Loan Contract” within Meaning of Lien Law/Only “Construction Funds” Subject to Subordination Penalty
THE SEARCH OF A SMALL EARBUD CASE IN DEFENDANT-PAROLEE’S POCKET WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMED PURPOSE OF THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ PRESENCE IN DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, I.E., A SEARCH FOR A PAROLE ABSONDER; THE HEROIN FOUND IN THE EARBUD CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
Starbuck’s Tip-Splitting Policy Analyzed
Plaintiff’s Lost Profits Deemed “General Damages,” Not “Consequential Damages,” Re: a Distribution Contract in which Plaintiff Agreed to Resell Defendant’s Product

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A Sex Offender Cannot Be Confined to a Treatment Facility as Part of “Strict... “Rent Paid In Advance” Lease Enforced/Insufficient Proof of Oral Modifi...