Harrington v. Old Elm Stock Farms, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrington v. Old Elm Stock Farms, Inc.

5 A.D.2d 950, 172 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6751

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 950 (Harrington v. Old Elm Stock Farms, Inc.) 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

Harrington v. Old Elm Stock Farms, Inc., 5 A.D.2d 950, 172 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff, without sufficient foundation or proper justification, was permitted to interrupt the orderly process of the trial, place defendant’s trial counsel on the stand during the course of defendant’s case and introduce a letter written by the witness which created the inference that defendant had made a statement to the plaintiff inconsistent with the former’s testimony. The atmosphere thus created, and the resulting confusion, was not effectively dissipated in the manner of the submission of the issues to the jury. In our view defendant was thereby denied a fair trial and in the interests of justice a new trial should be granted. (Rudnick v. Tuckman, 1 A D 2d 269, 272; Pioneer Credit Corp. v. San Miguel, 274 App. Div. 184, 191.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga Trial Term, for plaintiffs in an action for breach of contract.)

Present'— MeCurn, P. J., Eamball, Williams, Bastow and Goldman, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff, without sufficient foundation or proper justification, was permitted to interrupt the orderly process of the trial, place defendant’s trial counsel on the stand during the course of defendant’s case and introduce a letter written by the witness which created the inference that defendant had made a statement to the plaintiff inconsistent with the former’s testimony. The atmosphere thus created, and the resulting confusion, was not effectively dissipated in the manner of the submission of the issues to the jury. In our view defendant was thereby denied a fair trial and in the interests of justice a new trial should be granted. (Rudnick v. Tuckman, 1 A D 2d 269, 272; Pioneer Credit Corp. v. San Miguel, 274 App. Div. 184, 191.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga Trial Term, for plaintiffs in an action for breach of contract.)

Present'— MeCurn, P. J., Eamball, Williams, Bastow and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 950, 172 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-old-elm-stock-farms-inc-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack