PAREJA v. New York City Transit Authority, et al., Defendants-Respondents. (2008)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered November 13, 2007, dismissing the complaint after a jury verdict in defendants' favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the bus on which she was a passenger hit a pillar on White Plains Road. At trial, the bus driver testified that he swerved to avoid an oncoming car that cut in front him.

 There is no evidence that the offensive summation remarks of defense counsel cited by plaintiff improperly affected the verdict (cf. Kohlmann v. City of New York, 8 A.D.2d 598, 184 N.Y.S.2d 357 [1959] ).   Moreover, these remarks were brief and, after a 12-day trial with numerous witnesses, were unlikely to have affected the outcome.   We nonetheless observe that the remarks of defense counsel were uncalled for.   There is no justification for attacking the credibility of opposing counsel.   The veracity of counsel is simply not a subject for summation.

 There was nothing improper about admitting into evidence plaintiff's verified bill of particulars (see Owen A. Mandeville, Inc. v. Zah, 38 A.D.2d 730, 329 N.Y.S.2d 552 [1972], affd. 35 N.Y.2d 769, 362 N.Y.S.2d 149, 320 N.E.2d 865 [1974] ) to demonstrate her alleged failure to provide notice of prior injuries.   Statements and allegations in pleadings are always admissible as evidence, and may be used for any legitimate purpose at trial (Holmes v. Jones, 121 N.Y. 461, 24 N.E. 701 [1890] ).

 There was no requirement to charge sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law that have no relevance or reasonable connection to the manner in which the accident is said to have occurred (see Sutton v. Piasecki Trucking, 59 N.Y.2d 800, 464 N.Y.S.2d 734, 451 N.E.2d 481 [1983];  Vail-Beserini v. Rosengarten, 267 A.D.2d 812, 701 N.Y.S.2d 159 [1999] ).   The sections cited by plaintiff were not relevant to this accident.

We have reviewed the balance of plaintiff's argument and find it without merit.