Kojala v. Horner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kojala v. Horner

40 A.D.2d 1016, 338 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1016 (Kojala v. Horner) 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

Kojala v. Horner, 40 A.D.2d 1016, 338 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries of the infant plaintiff, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 23, 1971, which dismissed their Complaint, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The infant plaintiff, Dorothy Kojala, was a passenger in an automobile owned by defendant Horner and driven by defendant Dickson. The automobile ran off the road and collided with a tree; Dorothy Kojala thereby suffered injuries. In his opening to the jury, defendants’ counsel claimed that the attorney of record for plaintiffs had asked defendant Dickson in her home to sign a false [1017]*1017and collusive statement. At the trial it developed that the attorney of record for plaintiffs did not visit defendant Dickson. Although the trial court struck any testimony concerning the visit, we are of the opinion that the opening remarks of defendants’ counsel, which of course constituted a serious charge of unethical conduct, could not be easily erased from the minds of the jury. Since the issues in the case were close and vigorously contested, the interests of justice require a new trial. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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 of the infant plaintiff, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 23, 1971, which dismissed their Complaint, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The infant plaintiff, Dorothy Kojala, was a passenger in an automobile owned by defendant Horner and driven by defendant Dickson. The automobile ran off the road and collided with a tree; Dorothy Kojala thereby suffered injuries. In his opening to the jury, defendants’ counsel claimed that the attorney of record for plaintiffs had asked defendant Dickson in her home to sign a false [1017]*1017and collusive statement. At the trial it developed that the attorney of record for plaintiffs did not visit defendant Dickson. Although the trial court struck any testimony concerning the visit, we are of the opinion that the opening remarks of defendants’ counsel, which of course constituted a serious charge of unethical conduct, could not be easily erased from the minds of the jury. Since the issues in the case were close and vigorously contested, the interests of justice require a new trial. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1016, 338 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kojala-v-horner-nyappdiv-1972.