Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Marjorie CONROE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BARMORE-SELLSTROM, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
In this action by plaintiff to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in an accident on defendant's premises, defendant appeals from a judgment entered following a “summary jury trial” conducted pursuant to special rules fashioned in the Eighth Judicial District. The judgment awards plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $100,000 on the basis of a jury verdict finding that plaintiff had sustained both past and future pain and suffering in the amounts of $100,000 each, but that plaintiff had been 50% comparatively negligent. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to set aside the damages portion of the verdict.
We conclude that the court should have granted the motion inasmuch as it erred in admitting into evidence certain documents that set forth expert opinion but that were not disclosed by plaintiff to defendant until one day before trial. In two instances, the belatedly furnished materials took the form of physician's reports. One was the report of plaintiff's treating physician, while the other was a report of a nontreating, nonexamining radiologist who nonetheless purported to express an opinion as to the nature, extent and cause of plaintiff's injuries. Those two physicians' reports were prepared one day or four days before trial, respectively. The third item was a videotape and verbatim transcript of an unsworn, ex parte interview of another of plaintiff's treating physicians, conducted by plaintiff's investigator almost three years before disclosure.
Although the parties employed the summary jury trial procedure, the rules for summary jury trials do not alter the parties' rights or obligations of pretrial disclosure. We thus conclude that it was unfair to defendant for the court to admit the expert materials in question under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiff did not show “good cause” (CPLR 3101[d][1][i]; 22 NYCRR 202.17 [h] ) for soliciting the expert opinions such a short time before trial, nor for failing to disclose until the literal eve of trial such expert materials as were already in her hands (see Mazurek v. Home Depot U.S.A., 303 A.D.2d 960, 961, 757 N.Y.S.2d 425; Kassis v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn., 258 A.D.2d 271, 271-272, 685 N.Y.S.2d 44; Baden v. D.L. Peterson Trust, 190 A.D.2d 705, 706, 593 N.Y.S.2d 311; Corning v. Carlin, 178 A.D.2d 576, 577, 577 N.Y.S.2d 474). Compounding the unfairness is the fact that the belatedly disclosed expert materials set forth claims of injuries not specified in either the bill of particulars or those medical records and reports previously furnished to defendant (see Lissak v. Cerabona, 10 A.D.3d 308, 309-310, 781 N.Y.S.2d 337; Klempner v. Leone, 277 A.D.2d 287, 715 N.Y.S.2d 743; Gregory v. Mulligan, 266 A.D.2d 344, 698 N.Y.S.2d 309; Kassis, 258 A.D.2d at 271-272, 685 N.Y.S.2d 44; Holder v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 250 A.D.2d 813, 814, 673 N.Y.S.2d 460; cf. Connors v. Sowa, 251 A.D.2d 989, 674 N.Y.S.2d 544; Serpe v. Eyris Prods., 243 A.D.2d 375, 380, 663 N.Y.S.2d 542; Freeman v. Kirkland, 184 A.D.2d 331, 332, 584 N.Y.S.2d 828). Thus, allowing plaintiff to introduce those materials resulted in a significant and impermissible change of the theory of plaintiff's case (see Lissak, 10 A.D.3d at 309-310, 781 N.Y.S.2d 337; Acunto v. Conklin, 260 A.D.2d 787, 788-789, 687 N.Y.S.2d 779; Kassis, 258 A.D.2d at 271-272, 685 N.Y.S.2d 44), thereby significantly prejudicing defendant. Under the circumstances of this case, a new trial is warranted concerning the extent of the damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of the accident (see Holder, 250 A.D.2d at 814, 673 N.Y.S.2d 460; see also Gregory, 266 A.D.2d at 345, 698 N.Y.S.2d 309). We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the motion, set aside the verdict in part, and grant a new trial on damages only.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the verdict is set aside in part, and a new trial is granted on damages only.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 19, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)