| Rosenberg v Jing Jiang |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06205 [153 AD3d 744] |
| August 16, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Lillyan Rosenberg et al., Respondents, v Jing Jiang etal., Appellants. |
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., New York, NY (Marci D. Mitkoff,Elizabeth A. Giannotti, and James M. Skelly of counsel), for appellants.
Douglas & London, P.C. (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, NY [Arnold E.DiJoseph III], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered March 14, 2016,which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against themin the principal sum of $200,000.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Lillyan Rosenberg (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), then 87 years old, receivedacupuncture treatment for groin pain from the defendant Jing Jiang. During her third and finalacupuncture treatment, Jing Jiang used heat lamp treatment, which allegedly caused the injuredplaintiff to suffer third degree burns and permanent scarring. The injured plaintiff, and herhusband suing derivatively, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries.
The defendants conceded liability, and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on the issue ofdamages. During trial, the defendants objected to certain questioning of the injured plaintiff byher counsel as leading. The defendants also objected when the trial court permitted the plaintiffs'counsel to elicit testimony from a nontreating physician, who was called to testify as an expertregarding medical history given by the injured plaintiff to that witness. The jury returned averdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs and againstthe defendants in the principal sum of $200,000. The defendants appeal from the judgment.
Under CPLR 4011, the trial court has the authority to "regulate the conduct of the trial inorder to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition of the matters at issue" (CPLR 4011). A"trial court is granted wide latitude in controlling the conduct of a trial" (Roma vBlaustein, 44 AD2d 576, 576 [1974]), and "is generally accorded broad discretion in makingevidentiary rulings" (Matter of State ofNew York v John S., 23 NY3d 326, 344 [2014]; see Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49NY2d 636, 643 [1980]; Coopersmith v Gold, 223 AD2d 572, 574 [1996], affd 89NY2d 957 [1997]). Furthermore, CPLR 2002 provides [*2]that"[a]n error in a ruling of the court shall be disregarded if a substantial right of a party is notprejudiced" (CPLR 2002).
Here, any error in the admission of testimony was harmless, as we are satisfied that the resultwould have been the same if the testimony at issue had not been admitted (see CPLR2002; Barracato v Camp Bauman Buses, 217 AD2d 677, 678 [1995]; Catalan vEmpire Stor. Warehouse, 213 AD2d 366 [1995]). Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ.,concur.