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.
SCOTT WINTERMUTE, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. VANDEMARK CHEMICAL, INC., DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the posttrial motion is granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell inside a building at defendant's chemical plant. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and Supreme Court denied defendant's posttrial motion seeking to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a). We agree with defendant that the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to present the testimony of a witness who interviewed plaintiff concerning the facts and circumstances of his fall (see generally Kaplan v. Sparks [appeal No. 1], 221 A.D.2d 974, 974). That evidence was relevant to the critical issue whether plaintiff slipped on snow or ice inside of defendant's building, or whether plaintiff tracked the snow into the building on his boots. Moreover, inasmuch as plaintiff was in possession of the written report generated as a result of the interview well before trial, plaintiff demonstrated no prejudice from the untimely disclosure of this witness (see O'Callaghan v. Walsh, 211 A.D.2d 531, 531–532). We thus conclude that the court erred in denying defendant's posttrial motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial (see CPLR 4404[a] ).
In light of our determination, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 15–00348
Decided: December 31, 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)