Massey v. Meurer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Massey v. Meurer

25 A.D.2d 729, 268 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4510

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

DecidedApril 14, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 729 (Massey v. Meurer) 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

Massey v. Meurer, 25 A.D.2d 729, 268 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, entered upon jury verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial ordered. Notwithstanding that it appears that the plaintiffs were not seriously injured and that the verdict for the defendant is supported by the evidence, we are constrained to reverse and grant a new trial because of clear error in the admission into evidence, over objection, of proof of defendant’s acquittal on the charge of driving while intoxicated. It is well settled that “ a judgment of acquittal in a criminal prosecution is not admissible in a civil action”. (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 369, p. 353; see, also, Schindler v. Royal Ins. Co., 258 N. Y. 310, 313; Walther v. News Syndicate Co., 276 App. Div. 169, 174; Etheridge v. City of New York, 121 N. Y. S. 2d 103, affd. 283 App. Div. 867.) On this record, there was no justification for the receipt of the proof on the theory that plaintiffs had opened the door; and, inasmuch as defendant vigorously disputed plaintiffs’ proof tending to show that he was intoxicated, the error may not be regarded as nonprejudicial. It may be that this incompetent proof influenced the jury in resolving issues of credibility as well as determining the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. We have denied the plaintiffs costs on this appeal because, among other reasons, it appears that this action should not have been brought in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs completely failed to substantiate their respective claims as to serious injuries as alleged in their complaint and bills of particulars. The parties should stipulate to remove the action to Civil Court, and, in the event they do so, an order of removal should be entered providing for an immediate trial there.

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, entered upon jury verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial ordered. Notwithstanding that it appears that the plaintiffs were not seriously injured and that the verdict for the defendant is supported by the evidence, we are constrained to reverse and grant a new trial because of clear error in the admission into evidence, over objection, of proof of defendant’s acquittal on the charge of driving while intoxicated. It is well settled that “ a judgment of acquittal in a criminal prosecution is not admissible in a civil action”. (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 369, p. 353; see, also, Schindler v. Royal Ins. Co., 258 N. Y. 310, 313; Walther v. News Syndicate Co., 276 App. Div. 169, 174; Etheridge v. City of New York, 121 N. Y. S. 2d 103, affd. 283 App. Div. 867.) On this record, there was no justification for the receipt of the proof on the theory that plaintiffs had opened the door; and, inasmuch as defendant vigorously disputed plaintiffs’ proof tending to show that he was intoxicated, the error may not be regarded as nonprejudicial. It may be that this incompetent proof influenced the jury in resolving issues of credibility as well as determining the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. We have denied the plaintiffs costs on this appeal because, among other reasons, it appears that this action should not have been brought in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs completely failed to substantiate their respective claims as to serious injuries as alleged in their complaint and bills of particulars. The parties should stipulate to remove the action to Civil Court, and, in the event they do so, an order of removal should be entered providing for an immediate trial there.

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 729, 268 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-meurer-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack