Opinion
January 5, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J., and a jury).
Plaintiff's physician and chiropractor were properly permitted to testify concerning their recent examinations of plaintiff even though reports of such examinations of plaintiff had not been served on defendant, where the physician's testimony described no new injuries or claims but merely the consequences of the injuries described in previously served medical reports (see, Taylor v. Daniels, 244 A.D.2d 176). However, the award for future chiropractic services should be vacated, where plaintiffs' bill of particulars did not allege a need therefor (cf., Zapata v. City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 779, appeal dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 860), and the proof thereof was first adduced only on plaintiffs' rebuttal case when "the chiropractor was called for no apparent reason other than avoidance of a missing witness charge. The verdict sheet viewed in the context of the charge as a whole (see, Plunkett v. Emergency Med. Serv., 234 A.D.2d 162), was not misleading or confusing on the issue of proximate cause.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.