Balsz v. A & T Bus Co., 252 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Balsz v. A & T Bus Co., 252 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Abe v. New York Univ. (nyappdiv, 2020-02-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abe v. New York Univ.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
However, plaintiff's trial counsel joined in the [*2]request for that in limine ruling ( compare Benavides v City of New York , 115 AD3d 518 , 519 [1st Dept 2014] [in motion in limine plaintiff only objected to four specific entries in medical records; "admissibility of entries to which no timely specific objections were made is not preserved for this appeal"]; Balsz v A & T Bus Co. , 252 AD2d 458, 458 [1st Dept 1998] [argument that trial court erred in admitting hearsay medical reports "was not preserved by objection on that specific ground"]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Although several of counsel’s comments about defendants’ expert medical witness, including calling him a “hired gun,” were improper and would have been better off left unsaid, they did not “create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair” (Duran v Ardee Assoc., 290 AD2d at 367 , quoting Balsz v A & T Bus Co., 252 AD2d 458, 459 [1998]; see also Binder v Miller, 39 AD3d 387 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chadwick v. Gioia
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
In addition, plaintiffs failed to object to the charge as given, and thus their additional challenges to the court’s charge are unpreserved for our review (see CPLR 4110-b; Balsz v A & T Bus Co., 252 AD2d 458, 459 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Au
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Aside from the fact that defendants failed to properly preserve the issue of plaintiffs counsel’s conduct at trial (see Duran v Ardee Assoc., 290 AD2d 366 [2002]; Balsz v A & T Bus Co., 252 AD2d 458, 458-459 [1998]) or to show error so fundamental that it caused a gross injustice (see Heller v Provenzano, 257 AD2d 378, 379 [1999]), such behavior and comments were not shown to have substantially influenced or affected the fairness of the trial (Reilly v Wright, 55 AD2d 544, 545 [1976]; see also Panzarino v Jeffrey A. Weisberg, M.D., P.C., 257 AD2d 483, 484 [1999], appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 998…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gafur v. Garden Cab Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty. · 2004 · confidence medium
It did not constitute a sustained repeated remark that "obscure[d] the issues as to have made the trial unfair." Balsz v. A&T Bus Co. , 252 A.D.2d 458, 458-459 (1st Dept. 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Torres v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Poole v Consolidated Rail Corp., 510 US 816 [1993]; see also Rohring v City of Niagara Falls, 192 AD2d 228, 230-231 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 60 [1994]; Balsz v A & T Bus Co., 252 AD2d 458, 459 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duran v. Ardee Associates
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · confidence medium
Although certain of counsel’s comments might have been better left unsaid, the purportedly offensive comments did not “create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair” (Balsz v A & T Bus Co., supra, at 459).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kaia Balsz
v.
A and T Bus Company
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 23, 1998.
252 A.D.2d 458
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8416
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J., and a jury), entered October 17, 1997, insofar as appealed from, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant-appellant in the principal amount of $1,070,865, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in permitting plaintiff to use hearsay medical reports to bolster the testimony of her medical expert was not preserved by objection on that specific ground (see, Gunnarson v State of New York, 95 AD2d 797, 798), and in any event is without merit, since the hearsay contained in these reports was not the primary basis for plaintiff’s expert’s opinion (cf, O’Shea v Sarro, 106 AD2d 435, 437). Nor is there merit to the related argument with respect to plaintiff’s cross-examination of defendant’s expert, who had been asked to comment on these very same reports in his direct examination. Defendant’s argument that it was deprived of a fair trial by plaintiff’s summation was not preserved by a motion for a mistrial, or by specific objections to most of the[*459] comments in question, and where there were objections, they were sustained with appropriate curative instructions. In any event, the summation did not create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair (see, Rohring v City of Niagara Falls, 192 AD2d 228, 230-231, affd 84 NY2d 60). Also unpreserved is defendant’s claim of error with respect to the court’s charge (see, McCummings v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 AD2d 24, 31-32, affd 81 NY2d 923, cert denied 510 US 991), and there is no fundamental error warranting discretionary review of this issue. The finding of a permanent injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is not against the weight of the evidence (see, Scott v Yurkewecz, 234 AD2d 673), and conflicts in the expert testimony in this regard do not avail defendant (see, DiLauro v Consolidated Edison Co., 200 AD2d 485; Niles v Shue Roofing Co., 244 AD2d 820). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.