Kopp v. Hoffan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kopp v. Hoffan

280 A.D. 954, 116 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4351

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 954 (Kopp v. Hoffan) 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

Kopp v. Hoffan, 280 A.D. 954, 116 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services. The injuries were alleged to have been sustained when defendant’s automobile struck the infant plaintiff at a time when he was on roller skates. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered on a verdict in favor of defendant. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion, [955]*955it was prejudicial error for defendant’s counsel to remark during defendant’s cross-examination that defendant had been exonerated by the Motor Vehicle Bureau. (Tryon v. Willbank, 234 App. Div. 335.) Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services. The injuries were alleged to have been sustained when defendant’s automobile struck the infant plaintiff at a time when he was on roller skates. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered on a verdict in favor of defendant. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion, [955]*955it was prejudicial error for defendant’s counsel to remark during defendant’s cross-examination that defendant had been exonerated by the Motor Vehicle Bureau. (Tryon v. Willbank, 234 App. Div. 335.) Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 954, 116 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopp-v-hoffan-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack