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.
Jessenia A. FIENCO, respondent, v. Todd B. ROSE, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), entered June 15, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict and upon the denial of the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $80,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new trial, with costs to abide the event.
The Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Courts provide that, subject to a contrary judicial determination, “no party shall be permitted to offer any evidence of injuries or conditions not set forth or put in issue in the respective medical reports previously exchanged” (22 NYCRR 202.17[h] ). Here, the Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's physician to testify concerning the permanence of the plaintiff's injuries based upon an examination conducted during the trial on the morning on which the testimony was given. The defendants' counsel first became aware of the examination in the course of the physician's testimony, and the substance of that testimony was not reflected in the medical reports previously exchanged. Although strict application of the rule is, by its terms, subject to a contrary judicial determination, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing the physician's testimony here, in the absence of a showing of good cause (see Gregory v. Mulligan, 266 A.D.2d 344, 345, 698 N.Y.S.2d 309; Berson v. Chowdhury, 251 A.D.2d 278, 674 N.Y.S.2d 384). Since, in these circumstances, the defendants were prejudiced and deprived of a fair trial by the admission of the testimony, a new trial is required (see Diarassouba v. Urban, 24 A.D.3d 602, 808 N.Y.S.2d 344; Baden v. Peterson Trust, 190 A.D.2d 705, 593 N.Y.S.2d 311; Forman v. Davidson, 74 A.D.2d 505, 424 N.Y.S.2d 711).
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 21, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)