Capone v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capone v. New York City Housing Authority

29 A.D.2d 951, 289 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4271

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

DecidedApril 8, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 951 (Capone v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Capone v. New York City Housing Authority, 29 A.D.2d 951, 289 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff and defendants cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 16, 1966, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, whose appeal is on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of the verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered, with costs to [952]*952abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. During the course of trial, defendants were properly permitted to cross-examine plaintiff with regard to a bill of particulars which he had verified in an action arising out of a prior accident, as the bill set forth injuries similar to those claimed to have been sustained by him in the instant ease (see Bowers v. Johnson, 26 A D 2d 552; Petersen v. Forty-Five Nevins St. Corp., 22 A D 2d 960, affd. 17 N Y 2d 885). We are of the opinion, however, that it was error to refuse to permit plaintiff to introduce those other portions of the bill which served to qualify the apparent seriousness of the prior injury. The effect of the error and of the prejudicial remarks made by counsel for one of the defendants in summation mandates a new trial in the interests of justice. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, 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, plaintiff and defendants cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 16, 1966, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, whose appeal is on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of the verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered, with costs to [952]*952abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. During the course of trial, defendants were properly permitted to cross-examine plaintiff with regard to a bill of particulars which he had verified in an action arising out of a prior accident, as the bill set forth injuries similar to those claimed to have been sustained by him in the instant ease (see Bowers v. Johnson, 26 A D 2d 552; Petersen v. Forty-Five Nevins St. Corp., 22 A D 2d 960, affd. 17 N Y 2d 885). We are of the opinion, however, that it was error to refuse to permit plaintiff to introduce those other portions of the bill which served to qualify the apparent seriousness of the prior injury. The effect of the error and of the prejudicial remarks made by counsel for one of the defendants in summation mandates a new trial in the interests of justice. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 951, 289 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capone-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack