Kingsley v. Mandell Food Stores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kingsley v. Mandell Food Stores

57 A.D.2d 944, 395 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213

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

DecidedMay 31, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 944 (Kingsley v. Mandell Food Stores) 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

Kingsley v. Mandell Food Stores, 57 A.D.2d 944, 395 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 22, 1976, which, after a trial by jury on the issue of liability only, is in favor of defendant-respondent and against her. Judgment reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. Defense counsel’s inflammatory remarks concerning plaintiff-appellant may well have affected the jury’s verdict and thereby deprived her of a fair trial. Furthermore, while a Trial Judge has the right, indeed, the obligation, to clarify matters that may be unclear to a jury, he should never do so in a manner which may possibly lead the triers of the facts to believe that he has a view of the facts which they should adopt. In this case the Trial Judge, by the questions he asked in an endeavor to keep the record clear, may well have caused the jury to believe the defendant-respondent’s position. Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Martuscello, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment with the following memorandum: In my view, neither the conduct of the Trial Judge nor that of defense counsel was prejudicial to plaintiff.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 22, 1976, which, after a trial by jury on the issue of liability only, is in favor of defendant-respondent and against her. Judgment reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. Defense counsel’s inflammatory remarks concerning plaintiff-appellant may well have affected the jury’s verdict and thereby deprived her of a fair trial. Furthermore, while a Trial Judge has the right, indeed, the obligation, to clarify matters that may be unclear to a jury, he should never do so in a manner which may possibly lead the triers of the facts to believe that he has a view of the facts which they should adopt. In this case the Trial Judge, by the questions he asked in an endeavor to keep the record clear, may well have caused the jury to believe the defendant-respondent’s position. Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Martuscello, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment with the following memorandum: In my view, neither the conduct of the Trial Judge nor that of defense counsel was prejudicial to plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 944, 395 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsley-v-mandell-food-stores-nyappdiv-1977.