Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority

79 A.D.2d 982, 434 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9873

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 982 (Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority, 79 A.D.2d 982, 434 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death action, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 3, 1980, which was in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $93,500, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In this action involving the death of an 11-year-old boy who was killed in a subway accident, the trial court refused to allow defense counsel to impeach a defense witness by introducing a signed prior inconsistent statement of the witness. The witness testified that he had not seen plaintiff’s decedent hold on to or place his feet on the outside of the subway train. This was contrary to a signed statement he gave a transit authority investigator the day after the accident which was marked for identification at the trial. In the statement the witness said that “When the doors closed [plaintiff’s decedent] put his left hand in between the closed doors and his right foot on the edge of the doorway”. When defense counsel asked the witness, “did you tell anyone from the Transit Authority that you saw the boy hitch”, the court sustained plaintiff’s counsel’s objection. Palpably, that question was an attempt to lay a foundation for the introduction of the inconsistent part of the prior written statement as impeachment evidence (see 3 Bender’s NY Evidence, § 143.02, p 739; Bachand v Reeves, Inc., 279 NY 179,183). The error cannot be considered harmless under these circumstances. Therefore, a new trial is granted (see Lewis v Rau, 258 App Div 57, 58, mot for rearg den 258 App Div 876). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death action, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 3, 1980, which was in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $93,500, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In this action involving the death of an 11-year-old boy who was killed in a subway accident, the trial court refused to allow defense counsel to impeach a defense witness by introducing a signed prior inconsistent statement of the witness. The witness testified that he had not seen plaintiff’s decedent hold on to or place his feet on the outside of the subway train. This was contrary to a signed statement he gave a transit authority investigator the day after the accident which was marked for identification at the trial. In the statement the witness said that “When the doors closed [plaintiff’s decedent] put his left hand in between the closed doors and his right foot on the edge of the doorway”. When defense counsel asked the witness, “did you tell anyone from the Transit Authority that you saw the boy hitch”, the court sustained plaintiff’s counsel’s objection. Palpably, that question was an attempt to lay a foundation for the introduction of the inconsistent part of the prior written statement as impeachment evidence (see 3 Bender’s NY Evidence, § 143.02, p 739; Bachand v Reeves, Inc., 279 NY 179,183). The error cannot be considered harmless under these circumstances. Therefore, a new trial is granted (see Lewis v Rau, 258 App Div 57, 58, mot for rearg den 258 App Div 876). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 982, 434 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack