D'Apice v. Tishman 919 Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Apice v. Tishman 919 Corp.

43 A.D.2d 925, 352 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5676

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 925 (D'Apice v. Tishman 919 Corp.) 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

D'Apice v. Tishman 919 Corp., 43 A.D.2d 925, 352 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about November 16, 1972, which denied a motion for severance of the third-party complaint as against the defendant Employers Liability Assurance Corp., unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the motion granted and the third-party complaint severed as against defendant the Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. Appellant shall recover of third-party plaintiff-respondent $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The main action is one sounding in negligence and the third-party action against Otis Elevator Co. involves an issue of indemnity. The third-party action against Employers involves a dispute over insurance coverage. To allow this last issue to be tried before the same jury charged with the duty of determining issues of negligence and relative liability of the defendants would be error. The specific knowledge of the dispute over insurance coverage would of necessity temper the thinking of the jury and unduly influence their verdict. The prejudice inherent in a situation of this sort should be avoided. {Kelly v. Tarmotti, 4 N Y 2d 603; Strauss V. Bennett Bros. Corp., 27 A D 2d 528; Schwartz V. Jonathan Woodner & Co., 40 A D 2d 1027). It was therefore an improvident exercise of discretion to deny severance. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about November 16, 1972, which denied a motion for severance of the third-party complaint as against the defendant Employers Liability Assurance Corp., unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the motion granted and the third-party complaint severed as against defendant the Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. Appellant shall recover of third-party plaintiff-respondent $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The main action is one sounding in negligence and the third-party action against Otis Elevator Co. involves an issue of indemnity. The third-party action against Employers involves a dispute over insurance coverage. To allow this last issue to be tried before the same jury charged with the duty of determining issues of negligence and relative liability of the defendants would be error. The specific knowledge of the dispute over insurance coverage would of necessity temper the thinking of the jury and unduly influence their verdict. The prejudice inherent in a situation of this sort should be avoided. {Kelly v. Tarmotti, 4 N Y 2d 603; Strauss V. Bennett Bros. Corp., 27 A D 2d 528; Schwartz V. Jonathan Woodner & Co., 40 A D 2d 1027). It was therefore an improvident exercise of discretion to deny severance. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 925, 352 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dapice-v-tishman-919-corp-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack