From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bowe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1987
128 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 2, 1987

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Tavormina, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the holding of the Appellate Term that the plaintiffs' objections to the admission of expert testimony concerning the infant plaintiff's coordination problems, as well as objections to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to the infant plaintiff's non sui juris status, were moot, as these issues relate solely to the questions of proximate cause and comparative negligence, which question the jury necessarily did not reach in view of its finding that the city had not been negligent in maintenance of the sidewalk and water cap upon which the infant plaintiff fell (see, Niedelman v. Jacoby, 127 A.D.2d 640).

We would note that, in any event, the Civil Court properly exercised its discretion in ruling that a special education teacher and "evaluator" was qualified to testify as an expert with regard to the infant plaintiff's coordination problems. A determination as to a witness's qualifications to testify as an expert rests in the discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be disturbed in the absence of serious mistake, an error of law, or an abuse of discretion (see, Werner v. Sun Oil Co., 65 N.Y.2d 839; Meiselman v. Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 N.Y. 389; Karasik v. Bird, 98 A.D.2d 359). In the instant case the expert was well qualified by reason of his skill, training, education, knowledge and experience to answer the questions put to him. Moreover, testimony regarding the infant plaintiff's coordination and psychomotor problems was both relevant and admissible on the issue of causation of the accident. (see, Petersen v. Forty-Five Nevins St. Corp., 36 Misc.2d 178, revd on other grounds 22 A.D.2d 960, affd 17 N.Y.2d 885; Lipinsky v. City of New York, 8 A.D.2d 600).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions with respect to the trial court's jury charge are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Weinstein, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bowe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1987
128 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Bowe v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JAMEL BOWE, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, WILLIE BOWE et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 2, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Theodosiou v. CLD Transportation Co.

The jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, since the jury could have arrived at its…

Fleming v. Kings Ridge Recreation Park, Inc.

The issue of the infant plaintiff's amnesia was never raised in the complaint or bill of particulars, and, in…