PINES v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2020)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated December 1, 2016.  The judgment, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, in effect, dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting a defense witness to testify before the plaintiff rested to accommodate the witness's schedule (see CPLR 4011;  Matter of Tracey v. Tracey, 235 A.D.2d 838, 839, 653 N.Y.S.2d 871).  Any potential juror confusion was minimized by the court's appropriate explanatory instruction (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 121 A.D.3d 230, 245, 990 N.Y.S.2d 174, affd 27 N.Y.3d 1172, 38 N.Y.S.3d 85, 59 N.E.3d 1197, affd 27 N.Y.3d 765, 37 N.Y.S.3d 723, 59 N.E.3d 458).

“In the context of civil litigation, a claim of ineffective assistance will not be entertained, absent extraordinary circumstances” (Salvatore v. Salvatore, 68 A.D.3d 966, 967, 893 N.Y.S.2d 63;  see Hudson City Savings Bank v. Bomba, 149 A.D.3d 704, 705–706, 51 N.Y.S.3d 570;  Mendoza v. Plaza Homes, LLC, 55 A.D.3d 692, 693, 865 N.Y.S.2d 342).  Here, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, BALKIN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.