From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Raftopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 28, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).


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

The plaintiff contends that the Trial Judge improperly sustained the defendants' objection to the introduction into evidence of part of the examination before trial of the defendant Dr. Keith C. Apuzzo. Dr. Apuzzo, called as a witness on the plaintiff's behalf, was asked a question by the plaintiff's attorney with regard to an apparently prior inconsistent statement he had made at his examination before trial. The attorney for the respondents objected to the introduction of the statement made at the examination before trial on the ground that the statement had "nothing whatsoever to do" with the question and answer that Dr. Apuzzo had given at trial. The objection was followed by an off-the-record bench conference. The objection was then sustained. The plaintiff did not put any arguments in favor of denying the objection on the record, and apparently made no further attempt to admit the statement. Under these circumstances, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4017).

Further, the plaintiff's argument that the court erred when it failed to charge the jury in accordance with his written requests is also unpreserved for appellate review since the plaintiff raised only a general exception to the court's charge (see, Stern v. Waldbaum, Inc., 109 A.D.2d 789; Rogers v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 29 A.D.2d 47, affd 22 N.Y.2d 918). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Raftopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Raftopoulos

Case Details

Full title:HOWARD HAMILTON, Appellant, v. DIONISIOS RAFTOPOULOS et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Oct 28, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
575 N.Y.S.2d 531

Citing Cases

Saratoga Spa & Bath, Inc. v. Beeche Systems Corp.

We also find no merit to Campbell's contention that Supreme Court erred in prohibiting it from presenting a…

Ross v. Mandeville

The jury's resolution of conflicting expert testimony is entitled to great weight on appeal, as the jury had…