Opinion
2015-02-11
Lowayne WILLIAMS, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
Robert Kaminski, PLLC (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers, Yair S. Goldstein, and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents.
Robert Kaminski, PLLC (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers, Yair S. Goldstein, and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), entered September 5, 2013, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“The purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial” (DeSilva v. Rosenberg, 236 A.D.2d 508, 508, 654 N.Y.S.2d 30; see Priceless Custom Homes, Inc. v. O'Neill, 104 A.D.3d 664, 960 N.Y.S.2d 455; Sagiv v. Gamache, 26 A.D.3d 368, 369, 810 N.Y.S.2d 481). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his notice to admit improperly sought the defendants' admissions concerning a matter that went to the heart of the controversy in this case ( see Priceless Custom Homes, Inc. v. O'Neill, 104 A.D.3d at 664–665, 960 N.Y.S.2d 455; Lolly v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 45 A.D.3d 537, 844 N.Y.S.2d 718). Since the admissions sought were improper, the defendants' failure to timely respond to the subject notice should not be deemed an admission of the matters stated therein ( see Alberto v. Jackson, 118 A.D.3d 733, 734, 987 N.Y.S.2d 218). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to preclude the defendants from offering testimony regarding the matters as to which admissions were sought.
Under the circumstances of this case, reversal is not warranted on the basis of the interrogatories submitted to the jury ( cf. Collazo v. Cooper, 264 A.D.2d 378, 694 N.Y.S.2d 418; Barracca v. St. Francis Hosp., 237 A.D.2d 396, 655 N.Y.S.2d 565; Doolittle v. Conklin Brass & Copper Co., 103 A.D.2d 722, 478 N.Y.S.2d 625; Gannon Personnel Agency v. City of New York, 55 A.D.2d 548, 549, 390 N.Y.S.2d 62). RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.