You are here: / / REMARKS BY THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL PREJUDICED THE JURY...
, , , , ,

REMARKS BY THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL PREJUDICED THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this medical malpractice action and considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined the trial judge and a defendant’s attorney made comments which prejudiced the jury:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s repeated prejudicial comments and interjections prejudiced the plaintiff. For example, the court barred the plaintiff’s counsel from referring to the growth at issue on the plaintiff’s left foot as a tumor, ordered that the growth be referred to as a wart, and continued to refer to it as a wart through the trial. Thus, the court, in effect, determined a pivotal issue of fact that was properly for the jury to resolve … . In addition, the court opined multiple times before the jury that there was no proof that the plaintiff was misdiagnosed by the defendants, despite testimony by the plaintiff’s expert to the contrary which had already been elicited. Although the court later directed the jury to disregard its remarks, the instruction was not sufficient to cure the prejudice caused by its improvident comments and interjections … .

The comments of [defendant] Oami’s counsel also prejudiced the plaintiff. Oami’s counsel made multiple improper and inflammatory comments about the relationship between counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert pathologist during the cross examination of that expert and during his summation to the jury on behalf of Oami. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, these remarks were so inflammatory and unduly prejudicial as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial … . Valenti v Gadomski, 2022 NY Slip Op 01342, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

You might also like
25 Minute Response Time by Fire Department Was Not Actionable—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Fire Department—Fire Department’s Duty Is to the Public At Large
THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE 31 YEAR DELAY IN INDICTING DEFENDANT FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Allege Negligent Provision of Medical Care in Notice of Claim Required Dismissal of Negligence Cause of Action; Failure to Allege Facts Demonstrating a Custom or Practice of Providing Inadequate Medical Care Required Dismissal of 1983 Causes of Action 
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER ALLEGED CHANGES IN HIS WORK SCHEDULE ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS WITH THE CHILD; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED ON FATHER’S MODIFICATION PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
AT THE TIME THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE BORROWER HAD BEEN IN DEFAULT; A DISCREPENCY BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE DEFAULT IN THE 90-DAY NOTICE (JULY 2009) AND THE DATE IN THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE MORTGAGE AND IN THE COMPLAINT (MAY 2011) CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE (SECOND DEPT). ​
NEWS REPORTS CONNECTING PLAINTIFF TO AN ATTEMPTED RAPE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, REPORTS ACCURATELY REFLECTED INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE POLICE.
HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY THE COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE BUT NO NINETY-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED AND THERE HAD BEEN NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT; NO EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IS NECESSARY, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE, AND RESTORATION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT... THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216...