Camardo v. Nuccitelli

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Camardo v. Nuccitelli

32 Misc. 2d 660, 215 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3008

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 27, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 2d 660 (Camardo v. Nuccitelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camardo v. Nuccitelli, 32 Misc. 2d 660, 215 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The reference by the court on several occasions to the fact that this was plaintiff’s counsel’s first case might well have evoked a sympathetic attitude on the part of the jury towards plaintiff. Likewise the court’s comments and interjections during defendant’s cross-examination unduly hampered and limited the defendant. Such restriction constituted reversible error. (Chopak v. Walker, 275 App. Div. 669; Clay v. Monington, 266 App. Div. 695.) The attempt by the court to erase from the minds of the jurors these remarks and comments by charging the jury accordingly did not cure the situation. A new trial is required in the interests of justice. (Buckley v. 2570 Broadway Corp., 12 A D 2d 473; Kamen Soap Prods. Co. v. Prusansky & Prusansky, 11 A D 2d 676.)

The judgment should be unanimously reversed and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to defendant to abide the event.

Concur — Hart, Brown and Benjamin, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The reference by the court on several occasions to the fact that this was plaintiff’s counsel’s first case might well have evoked a sympathetic attitude on the part of the jury towards plaintiff. Likewise the court’s comments and interjections during defendant’s cross-examination unduly hampered and limited the defendant. Such restriction constituted reversible error. (Chopak v. Walker, 275 App. Div. 669; Clay v. Monington, 266 App. Div. 695.) The attempt by the court to erase from the minds of the jurors these remarks and comments by charging the jury accordingly did not cure the situation. A new trial is required in the interests of justice. (Buckley v. 2570 Broadway Corp., 12 A D 2d 473; Kamen Soap Prods. Co. v. Prusansky & Prusansky, 11 A D 2d 676.)

The judgment should be unanimously reversed and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to defendant to abide the event.

Concur — Hart, Brown and Benjamin, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 2d 660, 215 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camardo-v-nuccitelli-nyappterm-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack