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.
Linda MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered November 21, 2006, upon a jury verdict in defendants' favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when she fell while walking on a subway platform that was being retiled. During plaintiff's direct case, she called, among others, a mechanical engineer employed by defendant Transit Authority, and although plaintiff should have been permitted to use leading questions in examining the employee of an adverse party (see Jordan v. Parrinello, 144 A.D.2d 540, 541, 534 N.Y.S.2d 686 [1988] ), and ask him questions as an expert with respect to the renovation project he was supervising (see Lippel v. City of New York, 281 A.D.2d 327, 328, 722 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2001] ), the record does not establish that the trial court's erroneous rulings on these issues deprived plaintiff of access to favorable evidence or otherwise prejudiced her. Nor was plaintiff prejudiced by a pre-trial ruling limiting her use of the employee's deposition testimony for impeachment purposes (see Gogatz v. New York City Tr. Auth., 288 A.D.2d 115, 733 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2001] ), and the trial record does not demonstrate that plaintiff was precluded from offering any particular portion of the employee's deposition testimony for any purpose as evidence in her case-in-chief (CPLR 3117[a][2] ). The record further fails to support plaintiff's contention that the court ruled that she could not use enlarged photographs of the alleged defective condition during the trial, but rather shows that plaintiff abandoned the request.
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: April 01, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)