Camacho v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camacho v. City of New York

26 A.D.2d 570, 271 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3940

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

DecidedJune 20, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 570 (Camacho v. City of New York) 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

Camacho v. City of New York, 26 A.D.2d 570, 271 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged failure of the City of New York and the other defendants to provide adequate police protection, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 12, 1965, in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, without costs. While we agree with appellants that their counsel was improperly restricted in cross-examining defendants’ witness Chambers regarding a prior conviction (CPLR 4513) and that the knife introduced into evidence was not sufficiently identified (People v. Beasley, 9 A D 2d 954; People v. Hetenyi, 277 App. Div. 310, 316, affd. 301 N. Y. 757), we do not think these errors, singly or cumulatively, affected the verdict in any substantial manner. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged failure of the City of New York and the other defendants to provide adequate police protection, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 12, 1965, in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, without costs. While we agree with appellants that their counsel was improperly restricted in cross-examining defendants’ witness Chambers regarding a prior conviction (CPLR 4513) and that the knife introduced into evidence was not sufficiently identified (People v. Beasley, 9 A D 2d 954; People v. Hetenyi, 277 App. Div. 310, 316, affd. 301 N. Y. 757), we do not think these errors, singly or cumulatively, affected the verdict in any substantial manner. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 570, 271 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack