New York Court of Appeals, 1979

Mashley v. Kerr

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 14, 1979

47 N.Y.2d 892; 393 N.E.2d 471; 419 N.Y.S.2d 476; 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2160

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Wilson v. Bodian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Chandler v. Flynn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Moore v. Blank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Espriel v. New York Downtown Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Placakis v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Dudek v. Call (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Dukes v. Rotem (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Miller v. Kimber (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Desa v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Zeeck v. Melina Taxi Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Guzman v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Vetrano v. Calvey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Shufelt v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The trial record testimony does not reveal why plaintiff failed to produce certain medical witnesses. In this circumstance, the court’s charge relative to what inferences may be drawn from such failure was proper (see PJI 1:75). Likewise, the court’s ruling to receive in evidence certain exhibits consisting of accident reports made by the investigating officer may not be disturbed in view of a failure to make timely objection to their receipt, or to take proper exception thereto, other than with respect to the diagram and then on the *894ground of lack of personal knowledge on the part of the witness, an objection which was promptly obviated and accordingly properly overruled. Thus, in the absence of any preserved claimed errors, the order should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.