Cassidy v. Gray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cassidy v. Gray

234 A.D.2d 6, 650 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12257

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 6 (Cassidy v. Gray) 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

Cassidy v. Gray, 234 A.D.2d 6, 650 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendants from offering any evidence of plaintiff’s consumption of alcohol prior to plaintiff’s accident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The amount of alcohol consumed on the evening of the accident is an issue in this case. It is within the province of the Trial Judge to rule on the admissibility of this evidence at the appropriate juncture, and if admitted, of the factfinder to determine the weight it should be accorded. Defendants were not required to plead intoxication as an affirmative defense (CPLR 3018 [b]) and plaintiff can hardly claim surprise and prejudice where there is a plethora of evidence concerning his alcohol consumption, including statements he made to medical personnel and at his deposition. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendants from offering any evidence of plaintiff’s consumption of alcohol prior to plaintiff’s accident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The amount of alcohol consumed on the evening of the accident is an issue in this case. It is within the province of the Trial Judge to rule on the admissibility of this evidence at the appropriate juncture, and if admitted, of the factfinder to determine the weight it should be accorded. Defendants were not required to plead intoxication as an affirmative defense (CPLR 3018 [b]) and plaintiff can hardly claim surprise and prejudice where there is a plethora of evidence concerning his alcohol consumption, including statements he made to medical personnel and at his deposition. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 6, 650 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassidy-v-gray-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack