Goodstein v. Ankor Leasing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodstein v. Ankor Leasing, Inc.

51 A.D.2d 722, 379 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11192

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1976·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 24, 1974, in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict, after a trial on the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. At the trial, defense counsel insinuated, through attempted questioning, that the infant plaintiff used drugs, although no evidence of such use was presented, except for the infant plaintiff’s limited admissions that he had not used "soft drugs” for six months before the accident; no attempt was made to show that he had been under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident. Such questioning was improper and substantially prejudiced him (see Gorman v Goldman, 36 AD2d 767; Kohlmann v City of New York, 8 AD2d 598). Other defense arguments and summation tactics added to the prejudice, although such tactics, standing alone, might not have constituted grounds for reversal. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani, Christ and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 24, 1974, in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict, after a trial on the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. At the trial, defense counsel insinuated, through attempted questioning, that the infant plaintiff used drugs, although no evidence of such use was presented, except for the infant plaintiff’s limited admissions that he had not used "soft drugs” for six months before the accident; no attempt was made to show that he had been under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident. Such questioning was improper and substantially prejudiced him (see Gorman v Goldman, 36 AD2d 767; Kohlmann v City of New York, 8 AD2d 598). Other defense arguments and summation tactics added to the prejudice, although such tactics, standing alone, might not have constituted grounds for reversal. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani, Christ and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Goodstein v. Ankor Leasing, Inc., 51 A.D.2d 722, 379 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

51 A.D.2d 722 (Goodstein v. Ankor Leasing, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related