Carollo v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carollo v. Rose

43 A.D.2d 831, 350 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6006

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 831 (Carollo v. Rose) 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

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).

Pincite

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]*832evidence 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

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]*832evidence 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 831, 350 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carollo-v-rose-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack