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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 5, 1958·Published

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.

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

5 A.D.2d 950 (Harrington v. Old Elm Stock Farms, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related