Blair v. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blair v. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.

12 A.D.2d 724, 208 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6837

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 724 (Blair v. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blair v. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., 12 A.D.2d 724, 208 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The admission into evidence of the -written statements of two witnesses for the defendant, both of which contained a question and conclusory answer stating that the -witnesses did not “ consider bus driver at fault ”, was error and greatly prejudicial to plaintiff. The testimony of these witnesses was in no manner shaken by cross-examination or given the appearance of being a recent fabrication. (Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N. Y. 444; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 530, p. 511.) The admission of these statements makes a new trial necessary. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Trial Term’ for defendant for no cause of action, in a bus line negligence action.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The admission into evidence of the -written statements of two witnesses for the defendant, both of which contained a question and conclusory answer stating that the -witnesses did not “ consider bus driver at fault ”, was error and greatly prejudicial to plaintiff. The testimony of these witnesses was in no manner shaken by cross-examination or given the appearance of being a recent fabrication. (Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N. Y. 444; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 530, p. 511.) The admission of these statements makes a new trial necessary. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Trial Term’ for defendant for no cause of action, in a bus line negligence action.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 724, 208 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blair-v-central-greyhound-lines-inc-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack