Lawson v. Nyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawson v. Nyman

258 A.D. 1032, 16 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8708

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 1032 (Lawson v. Nyman) 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

Lawson v. Nyman, 258 A.D. 1032, 16 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, Memorandum: [1033]*1033On the question as to whether or not the defendant was guilty of any negligence, this is a close case. For that reason we think it was prejudicial error for defendant’s counsel to bring to the attention of the jury, by improper questions, the fact that plaintiff offered to settle the case for $100. Ah concur, except Taylor and Harris, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance on the ground that the verdict is so clearly in accord with the weight of evidence that the alleged prejudicial conduct of defendant’s counsel could not be said to have influenced the jury. (The judgment is for defendant in a negligence action. The order denies plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present —■ Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, Memorandum: [1033]*1033On the question as to whether or not the defendant was guilty of any negligence, this is a close case. For that reason we think it was prejudicial error for defendant’s counsel to bring to the attention of the jury, by improper questions, the fact that plaintiff offered to settle the case for $100. Ah concur, except Taylor and Harris, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance on the ground that the verdict is so clearly in accord with the weight of evidence that the alleged prejudicial conduct of defendant’s counsel could not be said to have influenced the jury. (The judgment is for defendant in a negligence action. The order denies plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present —■ Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 1032, 16 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawson-v-nyman-nyappdiv-1940.