Green v. Mower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Mower

3 A.D.2d 788, 160 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 788 (Green v. Mower) 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

Green v. Mower, 3 A.D.2d 788, 160 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a negligence case in the sum of $3,600.28, entered upon the verdict of a jury after a trial in the County Court of St. Lawrence County. On the trial the court permitted plaintiff to amend his bill of particulars to allege a permanent injury to his right wrist in the nature of restriction or limitation of motion. It was within the trial court’s discretion to permit such an amendment, and the record does not indicate an abuse of discretion. In answer to a hypothetical question a physician who had examined plaintiff, but had not treated him, was permitted to testify that the accident could have been a competent producing cause of plaintiff’s injuries and the condition which he found. This was not erroneous in our opinion (Turner v. City of Newburgh, 109 N. Y. 301; Richardson on Evidence [8th ed.], § 389). The verdict was not excessive. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a negligence case in the sum of $3,600.28, entered upon the verdict of a jury after a trial in the County Court of St. Lawrence County. On the trial the court permitted plaintiff to amend his bill of particulars to allege a permanent injury to his right wrist in the nature of restriction or limitation of motion. It was within the trial court’s discretion to permit such an amendment, and the record does not indicate an abuse of discretion. In answer to a hypothetical question a physician who had examined plaintiff, but had not treated him, was permitted to testify that the accident could have been a competent producing cause of plaintiff’s injuries and the condition which he found. This was not erroneous in our opinion (Turner v. City of Newburgh, 109 N. Y. 301; Richardson on Evidence [8th ed.], § 389). The verdict was not excessive. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 788, 160 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-mower-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack