Holtz v. Aldridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holtz v. Aldridge

256 A.D.2d 1198, 683 N.Y.S.2d 451

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 1998·No. Appeal No. 1·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs sole contention on appeal is that various remarks by defense counsel in summation were so unfair and prejudicial as to require a new trial. Plaintiff failed to move for a mistrial until after the jury rendered its verdict, and thus the motion was untimely (see, Taylor v Dayton Suregrip & Shore Co., 64 AD2d 809, 810). Although the remarks by defense counsel were improper, plaintiffs objections to those remarks were sustained [1199]*1199by Supreme Court, which immediately gave curative instructions. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Negligence.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs sole contention on appeal is that various remarks by defense counsel in summation were so unfair and prejudicial as to require a new trial. Plaintiff failed to move for a mistrial until after the jury rendered its verdict, and thus the motion was untimely (see, Taylor v Dayton Suregrip & Shore Co., 64 AD2d 809, 810). Although the remarks by defense counsel were improper, plaintiffs objections to those remarks were sustained [1199]*1199by Supreme Court, which immediately gave curative instructions. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Negligence.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Holtz v. Aldridge, 256 A.D.2d 1198, 683 N.Y.S.2d 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 1198 (Holtz v. Aldridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related