Coates v. Peterson & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coates v. Peterson & Sons, Inc.

48 A.D.2d 890, 369 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10149

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

DecidedJune 23, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 890 (Coates v. Peterson & Sons, Inc.) 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

Coates v. Peterson & Sons, Inc., 48 A.D.2d 890, 369 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries predicated upon negligence and breach of warranty, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 10, 1974, which is in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case at a jury trial. The judgment also recites that the third-party complaint is dismissed. Judgment reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, and new trial granted as to all parties and causes, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were raised or considered on this appeal. The trial court committed reversible error in excluding from evidence testimony offered by two expert witnesses called by plaintiff (Meiselman v Crown Heights Hosp., 285 NY 389). Both experts were sufficiently qualified, by virtue of experience and training, to testify as to the existence of defects, if any, in the safety features of the paper cutter (see Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 368). The weight to be accorded the expert testimony is, of course, a matter for the jury (Feder v Port of N. Y. Auth., 42 AD2d 602). In ruling in favor of the admissibility of the proffered expert testimony, we pass no judgment on whether, with the addition of such testimony, plaintiff will establish a prima facie case. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, 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 predicated upon negligence and breach of warranty, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 10, 1974, which is in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case at a jury trial. The judgment also recites that the third-party complaint is dismissed. Judgment reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, and new trial granted as to all parties and causes, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were raised or considered on this appeal. The trial court committed reversible error in excluding from evidence testimony offered by two expert witnesses called by plaintiff (Meiselman v Crown Heights Hosp., 285 NY 389). Both experts were sufficiently qualified, by virtue of experience and training, to testify as to the existence of defects, if any, in the safety features of the paper cutter (see Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 368). The weight to be accorded the expert testimony is, of course, a matter for the jury (Feder v Port of N. Y. Auth., 42 AD2d 602). In ruling in favor of the admissibility of the proffered expert testimony, we pass no judgment on whether, with the addition of such testimony, plaintiff will establish a prima facie case. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 890, 369 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coates-v-peterson-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack