Coppola v. Gross

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Coppola v. Gross

35 Misc. 788, 72 N.Y.S. 1098

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 788 (Coppola v. Gross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coppola v. Gross, 35 Misc. 788, 72 N.Y.S. 1098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Where the evidence is conflicting, this court declines to interfere with the jury’s verdict. There seems, however, to have been immaterial evidence admitted at the trial under objection, which may well have affected the minds of the jury. The issues presented were title to merchandise and its market value at time levied upon by defendant, and the extent of the levy. Under these issues, the testimony of the plaintiff as to her father’s business; the cross-examination of the witness Borschardt relating to the stock and affairs of a tea company, seems to have been proof entirely irrelevant and incompetent. This may well have prejudiced the defendant’s rights and its admission furnished ground for reversal.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

Where the evidence is conflicting, this court declines to interfere with the jury’s verdict. There seems, however, to have been immaterial evidence admitted at the trial under objection, which may well have affected the minds of the jury. The issues presented were title to merchandise and its market value at time levied upon by defendant, and the extent of the levy. Under these issues, the testimony of the plaintiff as to her father’s business; the cross-examination of the witness Borschardt relating to the stock and affairs of a tea company, seems to have been proof entirely irrelevant and incompetent. This may well have prejudiced the defendant’s rights and its admission furnished ground for reversal.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 788, 72 N.Y.S. 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppola-v-gross-nyappterm-1901.