You are here: / / EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF LATE NOTICE, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED...
, ,

EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF LATE NOTICE, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED BECAUSE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON MITIGATION OF DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants in this Labor Law 240 (1) action were properly precluded from offering expert testimony because of late notice. The Fourth Department further determined that the jury should have been instructed on mitigation of damages, requiring a new trial:

… [T]he court determined that there was a willful failure to disclose because, prior to jury selection, defendants’ attorneys knew that they intended to present testimony from the psychiatric expert, but they did not disclose the expert until the day after jury selection began, which violated the court’s directive that defendants disclose an expert as soon as they knew of said expert. Although the record establishes that plaintiff was aware of the possibility that defendants would call an expert psychiatrist, he was prejudiced by the tardiness of the disclosure both because it impaired his ability to discuss the relevant issues during jury selection and because it hamstrung his opportunity to retain an expert psychiatrist of his own. Thus, based on the evidence in the record supporting the court’s determination that defendants had engaged in purposeful gamesmanship by withholding the information, and the resulting prejudice to plaintiff, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the proposed expert testimony … .

We agree with defendants that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on mitigation of damages insofar as it applied to past and future lost wages… . Here, plaintiff’s physicians unanimously agreed that he was capable of working in a light duty or sedentary setting and, although he did obtain work shortly after being advised by a doctor to seek job training, there is a question, under the circumstances, of whether the part-time job that he took was a reasonable mitigation of his damages. Flowers v Harborcenter Dev., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00749, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).​
THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY EXCLUSION IN THE NAIL SALON’S INSURANCE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND EXCLUDES INJURY RESULTING FROM A “COSMETIC SERVICE;” PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE CONTRACTED AN INFECTION DURING A PEDICURE; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AFORD PLEA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY STRONG EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO COMMIT GRAND LARCENY, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STEPPED OFF A CURB AND FELL INTO A FOUR-FOOT DEEP STORM DRAIN; THE GRATE WHICH USUALLY COVERED THE DRAIN WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM; THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY INTO HIS HOME (THE PAYTON ISSUE); THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WITHOUT ANY NEED TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF THE ERRORS ON THE CONVICTION.
THE $40,000 PAID BY DECEDENT TO HER CAREGIVERS SHORTLY BEFORE DECEDENT ENTERED A NURSING HOME WAS PAYMENT FOR PAST SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO A PERSONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (PSA); IT WAS NOT AN “UNCOMPENSATED TRANSFER” SUBJECT TO THE 60-MONTH LOOKBACK FOR MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE CONCERNING HER DECISION TO FIRE PLAINTIFF,... THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT INDICATED BUYER, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY...