Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Givens v. Sinert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 6, 1997

243 A.D.2d 443; 665 N.Y.S.2d 285; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9331

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Xiao Yan Chen v. Maimonides Med. Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Cable v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Rowe v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Cruz v. St. Luke-Roosevelt Hospital Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Bielicki v. T.J. Bentey, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered May 14, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $275,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ claim, the Supreme Court did not unduly interfere with the presentation of the case or *444improperly indicate any partiality or bias so as to warrant reversal. “A Trial Judge may ‘assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where proper or necessary * * * to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the trial’ ” (Accardi v City of New York, 121 AD2d 489, 491, quoting People v Ellis, 62 AD2d 469, 470). Furthermore, for the most part, the remarks between the court and the defense counsel occurred outside the presence of the jury, and therefore did not prejudice the defendants’ case (see, Garces v Hip Hosp., 201 AD2d 615, 616; Berthoumieux v We Try Harder, 170 AD2d 248, 249-250). Also contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff sufficiently established a prima facie case of serious physical injury (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; § 5104 [a]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either without merit, or, to the extent that any error occurred, harmless. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.