Opinion
04-13-2017
Raphael SOLOMON et al., Appellants, v. Donna MEYER et al., Respondents.
Amed Marzano & Sediva, PLLC, New York City (Naved Amed of counsel), for appellants. Maynard, O'Connor, Smith & Catalinotto, LLP, Saugerties (Adam T. Mandell of counsel), for respondents.
Amed Marzano & Sediva, PLLC, New York City (Naved Amed of counsel), for appellants.
Maynard, O'Connor, Smith & Catalinotto, LLP, Saugerties (Adam T. Mandell of counsel), for respondents.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, GARRY, ROSE and AARONS, JJ.
PETERS, P.J.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mott, J.), entered September 9, 2015 in Ulster County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of defendants.
Plaintiffs and defendants were longtime neighbors and close friends. In 1999, defendants allowed plaintiff Raphael Solomon to store various items of personal property in their home. In 2007, Solomon removed at least some of the property from defendants' home. The following year, Solomon demanded the return of items that he claimed were still in defendants' possession. After defendants insisted that Solomon had already removed all of plaintiffs' property from their home, plaintiffs commenced this action sounding in conversion. Following a four-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. This appeal by plaintiffs ensued.
Plaintiffs contend that Supreme Court's conduct throughout the trial, particularly that directed toward their attorney, operated to deprive them of a fair trial. Having failed to register an objection or otherwise take exception to the complained of conduct, plaintiffs have failed to preserve the issue for this Court's review (see Heilbrunn v. Town of Woodstock, 50 A.D.3d 1377, 1380, 857 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2008] ; Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 239 A.D.2d 150, 150, 657 N.Y.S.2d 894 [1997] ). In any event, the "trial court has broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings and to admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary" (Campbell v. Rogers & Wells, 218 A.D.2d 576, 579, 631 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1995] ; accord Pramer S.C.A. v. Abaplus Intl. Corp., 123 A.D.3d 474, 474, 998 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2014] ; Carlson v. Porter, 53 A.D.3d 1129, 1132, 861 N.Y.S.2d 907 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 708, 868 N.Y.S.2d 601, 897 N.E.2d 1085 [2008] ). Here, the remarks and colloquies cited by plaintiffs, " when viewed in their proper context[,] reveal nothing more than an evenhanded attempt ‘towards focusing the proceedings on the relevant issues and clarifying facts material to the case in order to expedite the trial’ " (Heilbrunn v. Town of Woodstock, 50 A.D.3d at 1380, 857 N.Y.S.2d 279, quoting She.inkerman v. 3111 Ocean Parkway Assoc., 259 A.D.2d 480, 480, 686 N.Y.S.2d 99 [1999], lv. dismissed and denied 93 N.Y.2d 956, 694 N.Y.S.2d 346, 716 N.E.2d 182 [1999] ; accord Revell v. Guido, 124 A.D.3d 1006, 1009, 2 N.Y.S.3d 252 [2015] ; Tonkin v. Lofthouse, 34 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 823 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2006] ; compare Taromina v. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 242 A.D.2d 505, 506, 662 N.Y.S.2d 491 [1997] ).
Plaintiffs' objections to certain evidentiary rulings made by Supreme Court are to a large extent unpreserved and, in any event, unavailing. Not only have plaintiffs failed to establish that the challenged rulings were in fact erroneous, they have also failed to show that the outcome would have been different had the evidence at issue not been admitted (see CPLR 2002 ; Parris v. New York City Tr. Auth., 140 A.D.3d 938, 940, 35 N.Y.S.3d 137 [2016] ; Simone v. McNamara, 59 A.D.3d 349, 349, 873 N.Y.S.2d 621 [2009] ; Barracato v. Camp Bauman Buses, 217 A.D.2d 677, 678, 630 N.Y.S.2d 261 [1995] ; Tomanelli v. Lizda Realty, 174 A.D.2d 889, 890, 571 N.Y.S.2d 171 [1991] ). Finally, we need not address whether Supreme Court erred in qualifying defendants' witness as an expert for purposes of offering an opinion as to the value of the personal property at issue, since the jury never reached the issue of damages (see Juric v. Bergstraesser, 133 A.D.3d 951, 954, 19 N.Y.S.3d 360 [2015] ; Peralta v. Grenadier Realty Corp., 84 A.D.3d 486, 487, 923 N.Y.S.2d 63 [2011] ; Gilbert v. Luvin, 286 A.D.2d 600, 600, 730 N.Y.S.2d 85 [2001] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
McCARTHY, GARRY, ROSE and AARONS, JJ., concur.