Hopper v. Comfort Coal-Lumber Co.
This text of 276 A.D.2d 1014 (Hopper v. Comfort Coal-Lumber Co.) 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
Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur; Carswell, Acting P. J., and MacCrate, J., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: Although the witness Hansen previously had testified that he was a paid investigator who had acted in the interest of and on behalf of defendant, it was permissible, as further inquiry with respect to his interest or bias reflecting on credibility, for plaintiffs’ counsel to elicit the fact that he was employed by a named insurance company which was insurer of defendant. (Wood v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 257 App. Div. 172, affd. 281 N. Y. 797; Young v. Sonking, 275 App. Div. 871.) [See post, p. 1082.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
276 A.D.2d 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopper-v-comfort-coal-lumber-co-nyappdiv-1950.