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.
ANN TOWNE, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, ET AL., PLAINTIFF, v. DAVID E. BURNS, M.D. AND GENESEE SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, Ann Towne (plaintiff) appeals from an order insofar as it denied her motion to set aside the verdict of no cause of action and for a new trial in the interest of justice (see CPLR 4404[a] ). We reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing cross-examination of her expert regarding an out-of-state conviction of contempt. That conviction was based upon lies told by the expert to a judge during the course of the expert's trial testimony. Although the conviction was in 1983, “ ‘[c]ommission of perjury or other acts of individual dishonesty, or untrustworthiness ․ will usually have a very material relevance, whenever committed’ “ (Donahue v. Quikrete Cos. [appeal No. 2], 19 AD3d 1008, 1009, quoting People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377).
We agree with plaintiff, however, that the court abused its discretion in curtailing her effort to rehabilitate her expert on redirect examination by asking him to explain the facts underlying the contempt conviction (see People v. Tait, 234 App.Div. 433, 439, affd 259 N.Y. 599; Sims v. Sims, 75 N.Y. 467, 472–473). We further conclude, however, that the error is harmless, inasmuch as “[t]he excluded [testimony] would not ‘have had a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict’ “ (Czerniejewski v. Stewart–Glapat Corp., 269 A.D.2d 772, 773). Thus, the limitations imposed by the court on the redirect examination of plaintiff's expert do not support setting aside the verdict in the interest of justice (see Butler v. County of Chautauqua, 277 A.D.2d 964, 964).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 13–00420
Decided: February 13, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)