Casey v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casey v. State

31 A.D.2d 848, 297 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4639

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1969

DocketClaim No. 43506

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 848 (Casey v. State) 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

Casey v. State, 31 A.D.2d 848, 297 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

—■ Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims. The State seeks to set aside the judgment because the trial court allegedly erred in admitting two pretaking appraisals in evidence. The State concedes that if the admission of the evidence was error, it will not affect the judgment unless prejudicial to the State. The decision of the trial court states that the court “ disregarded any evidence of value contained ” in the disputed appraisals and based its decision on the other evidence in the record. Since thp admission of the disputed appraisals in the present action did not result in' any prejudice to the State, it is unnecessary to pass upon the question of their admissibility in evidence. (See Lieberthal v. State of New York, 22 A D 2d 831, 833, affd. 16 N Y 2d 1012.) We note that the attempt to lay a foundation for the evidence was somewhat prolonged and confusing in that it continued both before and after the admission of the exhibits in evidence and it would appear that there were different and possibly conflicting reasons for the admission of the appraisals. In view of the record as a whole and the statement by the court as to the appraisals, we need not. decide whether it was error to admit the exhibits in evidence. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

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

—■ Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims. The State seeks to set aside the judgment because the trial court allegedly erred in admitting two pretaking appraisals in evidence. The State concedes that if the admission of the evidence was error, it will not affect the judgment unless prejudicial to the State. The decision of the trial court states that the court “ disregarded any evidence of value contained ” in the disputed appraisals and based its decision on the other evidence in the record. Since thp admission of the disputed appraisals in the present action did not result in' any prejudice to the State, it is unnecessary to pass upon the question of their admissibility in evidence. (See Lieberthal v. State of New York, 22 A D 2d 831, 833, affd. 16 N Y 2d 1012.) We note that the attempt to lay a foundation for the evidence was somewhat prolonged and confusing in that it continued both before and after the admission of the exhibits in evidence and it would appear that there were different and possibly conflicting reasons for the admission of the appraisals. In view of the record as a whole and the statement by the court as to the appraisals, we need not. decide whether it was error to admit the exhibits in evidence. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 848, 297 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-state-nyappdiv-1969.