Harris v. Palitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Palitz

213 A.D.2d 156, 623 N.Y.S.2d 221

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered April 7, 1994, which denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to withhold from the jury the fact that the parties are married to one another, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that in this action for personal injuries, the fact that plaintiff passenger was married to defendant driver after the commencement of the action is relevant to the parties’ credibility, particularly on the issue of damages, and not so prejudicial as to require its exclusion from the jury’s consideration (cf., Kish v Board of Educ., 76 NY2d 379, 385). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered April 7, 1994, which denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to withhold from the jury the fact that the parties are married to one another, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that in this action for personal injuries, the fact that plaintiff passenger was married to defendant driver after the commencement of the action is relevant to the parties’ credibility, particularly on the issue of damages, and not so prejudicial as to require its exclusion from the jury’s consideration (cf., Kish v Board of Educ., 76 NY2d 379, 385). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Harris v. Palitz, 213 A.D.2d 156, 623 N.Y.S.2d 221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

213 A.D.2d 156 (Harris v. Palitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related