Edelstein v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edelstein v. Thomas

25 A.D.2d 714, 270 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 714 (Edelstein v. Thomas) 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

Edelstein v. Thomas, 25 A.D.2d 714, 270 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal' to either party. Memorandum: In the light of the factual situation- presented here it does not appear the defendant could have been prejudiced either by the court’s confused instructions in answer to a jiuror’s question, latex élarified, or by his unusual conduct in having the jury returned to the eourt-room after two hours’ deliberation to' a'sk of. eaeh- individual juror if he- had any question, which practice we do- not approve. While some of the ensuing questions and comments added only to the confusion- of the situation there would appear to- be nothing presented that- prejudiced- the rights of the parties to a fair and proper' determination of the issues. (Appeal from judgment of Brie Trial Term for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.}

Present— Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry) D'el Vecehio- and Marsh, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal' to either party. Memorandum: In the light of the factual situation- presented here it does not appear the defendant could have been prejudiced either by the court’s confused instructions in answer to a jiuror’s question, latex élarified, or by his unusual conduct in having the jury returned to the eourt-room after two hours’ deliberation to' a'sk of. eaeh- individual juror if he- had any question, which practice we do- not approve. While some of the ensuing questions and comments added only to the confusion- of the situation there would appear to- be nothing presented that- prejudiced- the rights of the parties to a fair and proper' determination of the issues. (Appeal from judgment of Brie Trial Term for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.}

Present— Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry) D'el Vecehio- and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 714, 270 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelstein-v-thomas-nyappdiv-1966.