Pietrobon v. Immordino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pietrobon v. Immordino

44 A.D.2d 757, 354 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285

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

DecidedApril 11, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 757 (Pietrobon v. Immordino) 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

Pietrobon v. Immordino, 44 A.D.2d 757, 354 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Defendant was vigorously cross-examined by plaintiff’s counsel with regard to certain portions of a signed statement admittedly given by defendant approximately four months after the accident. In the course of the cross-examination some apparent inconsistencies were developed between the defendant’s testimony in court and the narrative contained in his statement. After defendant was excused and the evidence closed plaintiff offered the entire statement in evidence and the court sustained defendant’s objection stating that there had been testimony as to the relevant parts of it. While the plaintiff’s offer of the statement in evidence was not timely and plaintiff made no motion to reopen the case to make the offer, it might be concluded that the court was in error in not receiving the entire statement in evidence. However, it would appear that plaintiff on cross-examination of defendant did disclose such portions of the statement as were deemed helpful to his position, and the jury having been made aware of such apparent inconsistencies as the plaintiff deemed significant, no substantial right of the plaintiff was prejudiced. (Appeal from judgment and order of Niagara Trial Term dismissing complaint in negligence action.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Mahoney, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Defendant was vigorously cross-examined by plaintiff’s counsel with regard to certain portions of a signed statement admittedly given by defendant approximately four months after the accident. In the course of the cross-examination some apparent inconsistencies were developed between the defendant’s testimony in court and the narrative contained in his statement. After defendant was excused and the evidence closed plaintiff offered the entire statement in evidence and the court sustained defendant’s objection stating that there had been testimony as to the relevant parts of it. While the plaintiff’s offer of the statement in evidence was not timely and plaintiff made no motion to reopen the case to make the offer, it might be concluded that the court was in error in not receiving the entire statement in evidence. However, it would appear that plaintiff on cross-examination of defendant did disclose such portions of the statement as were deemed helpful to his position, and the jury having been made aware of such apparent inconsistencies as the plaintiff deemed significant, no substantial right of the plaintiff was prejudiced. (Appeal from judgment and order of Niagara Trial Term dismissing complaint in negligence action.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Mahoney, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 757, 354 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pietrobon-v-immordino-nyappdiv-1974.