Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)

Citation: Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)
Parent Document: Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1991-03-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2103411/bernstein-v-fernandez/ ↗

Full Text

1,267 chars

As to the photographs of the dilapidated ceilings, which were taken after the complaint was filed and after discovery was closed, H & M contends that it was prejudiced because these photographs were of repairs in progress and did not accurately depict the state of the ceilings before, or especially after, the repairs were made. This argument was not raised until the day before trial, which is one reason why the court rejected it. We reject it as well. While evidence that has not been subject to discovery should be admitted with caution, in this instance there was no surprise or prejudice to H & M. See Taylor, supra, 407 A.2d at 591-592. Counsel for H & M quickly concluded that these photographs were of repairs in progress and presented ample evidence to support that theory. It was, however, within the jury’s province to find that the photographs depicted the true state of affairs in the Fernandez apartment. Alternatively, the jury may have accepted that the photographs were of repairs in progress, but decided nevertheless that the frequency of these repairs and the large quantity of debris they rained on Fernandez’s possessions, on her floors, and in her bathtub and toilet showed an apartment that was not kept in *1070good repair by its landlord.3

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text