Burgess v. Essler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgess v. Essler

261 A.D. 1042, 25 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8643

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 1042 (Burgess v. Essler) 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

Burgess v. Essler, 261 A.D. 1042, 25 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The evidence presents close questions both as to the defendants’ negligence and as to the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. The answer of the witness Beardsley to the effect that he made a written statement “ the morning after the insurance representative came and questioned me regarding the accident ” clearly suggests that the defendant was insured against liability. The answer was stricken out. The court in its charge referred to the incident and instructed the jury as to their duty to disregard it. However, we are unable to find from the record that the suggestion of insurance did not influence the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. (See Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479; Gebo v. Findlay, 257 App. Div. 66.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCum, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The evidence presents close questions both as to the defendants’ negligence and as to the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. The answer of the witness Beardsley to the effect that he made a written statement “ the morning after the insurance representative came and questioned me regarding the accident ” clearly suggests that the defendant was insured against liability. The answer was stricken out. The court in its charge referred to the incident and instructed the jury as to their duty to disregard it. However, we are unable to find from the record that the suggestion of insurance did not influence the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. (See Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479; Gebo v. Findlay, 257 App. Div. 66.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCum, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1042, 25 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-essler-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack