Hager v. Bushman
This text of 255 A.D. 934 (Hager v. Bushman) 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.
Opinion
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: That this accident happened solely by reason of the negligence of the defendant is a permissible conclusion from the undisputed facts. This conclusion the jury properly arrived at. The testimony that defendant was protected by insurance was improperly offered and erroneously received. Although this testimony was not stricken and the jury were not instructed to disregard it, it is clear that it did not influence the verdict of the jury. Hence, the refusal of the court to declare a mistrial or to set aside the verdict was proper. (Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479, 490; Rodzborski v. American Sugar Refining Co., 210 id. 262, 269; Di Tommaso v. Syracuse University, 172 App. Div. 34, 36.) All concur, except Sears, P. J., not voting. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
255 A.D. 934, 8 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hager-v-bushman-nyappdiv-1938.