CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance

260 A.D.2d 529, 686 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4068

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 19, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover upon a labor and material payment bond, the plaintiff appeals from "a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), entered August 20, 1997, [530] which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against it dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs claim that it was deprived of a fair trial is without merit. “ ‘A Trial Judge may “assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where proper or necessary * * * to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the trial” ’ ” (Givens v Sinert, 243 AD2d 443). Nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding certain evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant, collateral, or otherwise incompetent (see, Coopersmith v Gold, 89 NY2d 957, 959; Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-305 [Farrell 11th ed]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or both. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover upon a labor and material payment bond, the plaintiff appeals from "a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), entered August 20, 1997, [530] which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against it dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs claim that it was deprived of a fair trial is without merit. “ ‘A Trial Judge may “assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where proper or necessary * * * to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the trial” ’ ” (Givens v Sinert, 243 AD2d 443). Nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding certain evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant, collateral, or otherwise incompetent (see, Coopersmith v Gold, 89 NY2d 957, 959; Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-305 [Farrell 11th ed]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or both. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 260 A.D.2d 529, 686 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

260 A.D.2d 529 (CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related