Martin v. Alabama 84 Truck Rental, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Martin v. Alabama 84 Truck Rental, Inc.

390 N.E.2d 774, 47 N.Y.2d 721, 417 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1995

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 390 N.E.2d 774 (Martin v. Alabama 84 Truck Rental, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Alabama 84 Truck Rental, Inc., 390 N.E.2d 774, 47 N.Y.2d 721, 417 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1995 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

On this record we cannot agree with the plaintiff that the court committed error in refusing to charge the emergency doctrine as a justification for the plaintiffs speeding at the time of the accident. This is particularly so when considered in light of the charge given by the court that the emergency doctrine has no application where the plaintiff participated in the creation of the emergency (cf. Johnson v Hickson, 43 NY2d 906, 908). Nor do we agree that the court erred in allowing cross-examination on the plaintiffs failure to renew his driver’s license. Although such testimony is inadmissible on the issue of negligence, the record reveals that the court allowed the jury to consider this solely on the issue of credibility. The nature and extent of the cross-examination on the question of credibility is within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge. and therefore beyond our review (Richardson, Evidence, § 500, at p 485).

We have reviewed plaintiffs other contentions of prejudicial error allegedly committed by the trial court and find such contentions insufficient to require a reversal.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

On this record we cannot agree with the plaintiff that the court committed error in refusing to charge the emergency doctrine as a justification for the plaintiffs speeding at the time of the accident. This is particularly so when considered in light of the charge given by the court that the emergency doctrine has no application where the plaintiff participated in the creation of the emergency (cf. Johnson v Hickson, 43 NY2d 906, 908). Nor do we agree that the court erred in allowing cross-examination on the plaintiffs failure to renew his driver’s license. Although such testimony is inadmissible on the issue of negligence, the record reveals that the court allowed the jury to consider this solely on the issue of credibility. The nature and extent of the cross-examination on the question of credibility is within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge. and therefore beyond our review (Richardson, Evidence, § 500, at p 485).

We have reviewed plaintiffs other contentions of prejudicial error allegedly committed by the trial court and find such contentions insufficient to require a reversal.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 N.E.2d 774, 47 N.Y.2d 721, 417 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-alabama-84-truck-rental-inc-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack