Parsons v. 218 E. Main St. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parsons v. 218 E. Main St. Corp.

1 A.D.2d 420, 766 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 420 (Parsons v. 218 E. Main St. Corp.) 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

Parsons v. 218 E. Main St. Corp., 1 A.D.2d 420, 766 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), entered September 11, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant 218 E. Main St. Corp. and against them on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant 218 E. Main St. Corp., and a new trial is ordered, with costs to abide the event.

It is well settled that extrinsic evidence may not be used to impeach the credibility of a witness on collateral matters (see Badr v Hogan, 75 NY2d 629, 634 [1990]; Halloran v Virginia Chems., 41 NY2d 386, 390 [1977]; Ingebretsen v Manha, 218 AD2d 784 [1995]; Getlin v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 117 AD2d 707 [1986]). Here, the trial court improperly permitted counsel for the defendant 218 E. Main St. Corp. to introduce a hospital record and the testimony of a physician’s assistant to contradict the injured plaintiff’s testimony on a matter that was irrelevant to the issues in the case. Moreover, the error was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial (see Badr v Hogan, supra at 636-637). Santucci, J.P, Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), entered September 11, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant 218 E. Main St. Corp. and against them on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant 218 E. Main St. Corp., and a new trial is ordered, with costs to abide the event.

It is well settled that extrinsic evidence may not be used to impeach the credibility of a witness on collateral matters (see Badr v Hogan, 75 NY2d 629, 634 [1990]; Halloran v Virginia Chems., 41 NY2d 386, 390 [1977]; Ingebretsen v Manha, 218 AD2d 784 [1995]; Getlin v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 117 AD2d 707 [1986]). Here, the trial court improperly permitted counsel for the defendant 218 E. Main St. Corp. to introduce a hospital record and the testimony of a physician’s assistant to contradict the injured plaintiff’s testimony on a matter that was irrelevant to the issues in the case. Moreover, the error was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial (see Badr v Hogan, supra at 636-637). Santucci, J.P, Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 420, 766 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-218-e-main-st-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack