| Georgescu v City of New York |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04775 [107 AD3d 946] |
| June 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Sorana M. Georgescu, Appellant, v City of NewYork, Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered October 18, 2011,which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant City of New York and against herdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuriesallegedly sustained on September 18, 2007, when her foot and leg slid between the edgeof a sewer grate and a sidewalk. After a trial on the issue of liability, the jury returned averdict finding that the defendant City of New York had not received prior written noticeof the condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff's accident. Accordingly, theSupreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the City.
The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court improperly instructed the jury on theissues of notice and liability. In essence, the plaintiff argues that the Supreme Courtfailed to instruct the jury that the word "street," as defined in Administrative Code of theCity of New York § 7-201 (c) (1) (a), includes the "curb" and, therefore, the jurywas misled as to the allegedly defective condition that caused the plaintiff's accident andwas hindered in its ability to determine whether the City received prior written notice ofsuch condition. However, the plaintiff's contention is without merit. Contrary to theplaintiff's contention, the charge was sufficient, when read as a whole, to convey thecorrect legal principles to the jury (see generally Winderman v Brooklyn/McDonald Ave. ShopriteAssoc., Inc., 85 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2011]; Casella v City of New York, 69 AD3d 549, 550 [2010];Manna v Don Diego, 261 AD2d 590, 591 [1999]). Moreover, the charge was notmisleading, and did not hinder the jury's ability to determine whether the plaintiff's fallwas caused by a section of missing curb of which the City received prior written noticethrough the filing of a map prepared by the Big Apple Pothole & Sidewalk ProtectionCommittee, or a defective sewer grate which was not depicted on the subject map.[*2]
"The trial court has broad discretion incontrolling the scope of direct, cross, and redirect questioning" (Caserta v Levittown SchoolDist., 12 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]; see Ingebretsen v Manha, 218 AD2d784 [1995]). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in limiting her testimony on redirect examination (seeIngebretsen v Manha, 218 AD2d at 784; cf. Chabica v Schneider, 213 AD2d579, 581 [1995]), and in terminating a line of inquiry during the cross examination ofone of the City's witnesses, where the plaintiff's counsel repeatedly asked questionswhich had already been answered, or which were not relevant (see generallyPrendergast v Patel, 301 AD2d 508, 509 [2003]; Chase Manhattan Bank vBekerus, 276 AD2d 461 [2000]; Farahmandpour v Singer, 247 AD2d 358,359 [1998]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Rivera,J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.