Carollo v. Rose

43 A.D.2d 831, 350 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6006
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 4, 1974·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 3,1973, in favor of plaintiffs on the issue of liability only, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Appellant presented no contention as to the questions of fact and this court did not consider such questions. In our opinion, prejudicial error was committed in the ¡receipt, over defendants’ objection, of [832] evidence that subsequent to the accident repairs and alterations of the accident area were undertaken by defendants (cf. Corcoran v. Village of Peekskill, 108 N. Y. 151; Del Riccio v. Montwill Corp., 16 A D 2d 971). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Carollo v. Rose, 43 A.D.2d 831, 350 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

43 A.D.2d 831 (Carollo v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Giannelli v. Montgomery Kone, Inc.
175 Misc. 2d 32 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Shvets v. Landau
121 Misc. 2d 34 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Klatz v. Armor Elevator Co.
93 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)