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

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

DecidedApril 19, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 529 (CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance) 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

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

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]*530which, 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]*530which, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 529, 686 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crk-contracting-of-suffolk-inc-v-hartford-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack