Kohlmann v. City of New York

8 A.D.2d 598, 184 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9203
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 14, 1959
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 8 A.D.2d 598 (Kohlmann v. City of New York) 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
Kohlmann v. City of New York, 8 A.D.2d 598, 184 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

— The judgment appealed from is unanimously reversed on the facts and on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant. Trial tactics of plaintiffs’ counsel in the manner and content of his cross-examination, his comments and the expression of his personal views, exceeded the bounds of propriety and evinced a determination to convey to the jury his own characterization and appraisal of the witnesses for the defendant. His conduct appears to have been calculated to influence the jury by considerations which were not legitimately before them, and cannot be dismissed as inadvertent, thoughtless or harmless. Parties to a trial, civil or criminal, have a right to have the case determined on the facts and the law applicable thereto. When misconduct of counsel in interrogation or summation so violates the rights of the other party to the litigation that extraneous matters beyond the proper scope of the trial may have substantially influenced or been determinative of the outcome, such breaches of the rules will not be condoned. (Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479; Cherry Creek Nat. Bank v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 207 App. Div. 787 (on summation): People v. Carborano, 301 N. Y. 39; Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y. 128.) It is regrettable that despite the apparent strength of the plaintiffs’ case a new trial must be ordered in the interests of justice. Concur — Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Related

Smith v. Rudolph
2017 NY Slip Op 2957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Gregware v. City of New York
132 A.D.3d 51 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Pareja v. City of New York
49 A.D.3d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Minichiello v. Supper Club
296 A.D.2d 350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Steidel v. County of Nassau
182 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Clarke v. New York City Transit Authority
174 A.D.2d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Escobar v. Seatrain Lines, Inc.
175 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Senn v. Scudieri
165 A.D.2d 346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Marand Construction Corp. v. Rapid Rehabilitation Corp.
61 A.D.2d 1041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Reilly v. Wright
55 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Goodstein v. Ankor Leasing, Inc.
51 A.D.2d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.2d 598, 184 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohlmann-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1959.