Opinion
790 CA 19-00939
11-20-2020
Robert C. WILLIAMS, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Chyrie L. Williams, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RIDGE VIEW MANOR, LLC, and Legacy Health Care, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. (Appeal No. 1.)
CAITLIN ROBIN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, BUFFALO (ANGELA THOMPSON-TINSLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. BROWN CHIARI LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL C. SCINTA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
CAITLIN ROBIN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, BUFFALO (ANGELA THOMPSON-TINSLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
BROWN CHIARI LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL C. SCINTA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., NEMOYER, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and a new trial is granted.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action as the administrator of the estate of his mother, Chyrie L. Williams (decedent), seeking to recover damages for injuries that decedent allegedly sustained due to, among other things, defendants' negligence and violations of the Public Health Law. In appeal No. 1, defendants appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages following a jury trial. In appeal No. 2, defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to set aside the verdict.
Although we reject defendants' contention in appeal No. 1 that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see Hoover v. New Holland N. Am., Inc. , 100 A.D.3d 1495, 1497, 954 N.Y.S.2d 345 [4th Dept. 2012], affd 23 N.Y.3d 41, 988 N.Y.S.2d 543, 11 N.E.3d 693 [2014] ), we agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in allowing plaintiff to cross-examine a defense expert using the deposition of decedent's husband, a nonparty. CPLR 3117 limits the use of a nonparty's deposition at trial to either the impeachment of that nonparty as a witness (see CPLR 3117 [a] [1] ), or for "any purpose against any other party" in case of the nonparty's unavailability at trial ( CPLR 3117 [a] [3] ; see United Bank v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp. , 41 N.Y.2d 254, 264, 392 N.Y.S.2d 265, 360 N.E.2d 943 [1976], rearg denied 41 N.Y.2d 901, 393 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 362 N.E.2d 640 [1977] ). Here, plaintiff was not using the husband's deposition testimony to impeach the husband's own trial testimony, and the husband was available and testified at trial. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, CPLR 4515 does not permit a party to cross-examine an expert with all the materials that the expert reviewed in formulating his or her opinion, regardless of the independent admissibility of those materials (see generally Jemmott v. Lazofsky , 5 A.D.3d 558, 560, 772 N.Y.S.2d 840 [2d Dept. 2004] ). "That statute provides only that an expert witness may on cross-examination ‘be required to specify the data and other criteria supporting the opinion’ " ( Cromp v. Ahluwalia , 43 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 842 N.Y.S.2d 842 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 818, 852 N.Y.S.2d 14, 881 N.E.2d 1201 [2008], quoting CPLR 4515 ). Because the testimony pertained directly to the central issue to be resolved by the jury, i.e., the quality of care that decedent received, the error was not harmless, and we therefore reverse the judgment and order a new trial (see Billok v. Union Carbide Corp. , 170 A.D.3d 1388, 1389-1390, 96 N.Y.S.3d 714 [3d Dept. 2019] ; see generally M.S. v. County of Orange , 64 A.D.3d 560, 562, 884 N.Y.S.2d 74 [2d Dept. 2009] ).
Defendants' remaining contentions in appeal No. 1 are academic.
With respect to appeal No. 2, because the issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the final judgment in appeal No. 1, the appeal from the order in appeal No. 2 must be dismissed (see Smith v. Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens , 155 A.D.2d 435, 435, 547 N.Y.S.2d 96 [2d Dept. 1989] ; see also CPLR 5501 [a] ; cf. Knapp v. Finger Lakes NY, Inc. , 184 A.D.3d 335, 337, 125 N.Y.S.3d 824 [4th Dept. 2020] ).