Bookstein v. Halvas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bookstein v. Halvas

73 A.D.2d 926, 423 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9836

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 926 (Bookstein v. Halvas) 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

Bookstein v. Halvas, 73 A.D.2d 926, 423 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 20, 1978, which denied their motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of defendant and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered October 19, 1978, which is in favor of defendant and against them, upon the jury verdict. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed. Defendant is awarded one bill of costs to cover both appeals. Plaintiffs’ witness was not permitted to testify as to his personal knowledge of the timing and sequence of the traffic lights at the intersection where the collision occurred. He had, however, testified that the light was red for him and must have been red for the defendant. Therefore, the excluded testimony did not affect a substantial right of the plaintiffs and does not require a reversal. There was a conflict in the testimony and the jury determined the questions of credibility. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 20, 1978, which denied their motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of defendant and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered October 19, 1978, which is in favor of defendant and against them, upon the jury verdict. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed. Defendant is awarded one bill of costs to cover both appeals. Plaintiffs’ witness was not permitted to testify as to his personal knowledge of the timing and sequence of the traffic lights at the intersection where the collision occurred. He had, however, testified that the light was red for him and must have been red for the defendant. Therefore, the excluded testimony did not affect a substantial right of the plaintiffs and does not require a reversal. There was a conflict in the testimony and the jury determined the questions of credibility. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 926, 423 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bookstein-v-halvas-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack