Price v. Alfieri Concrete, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Price v. Alfieri Concrete, Inc.

70 A.D.2d 932, 417 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12536

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

DecidedJune 18, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 932 (Price v. Alfieri Concrete, Inc.) 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

Price v. Alfieri Concrete, Inc., 70 A.D.2d 932, 417 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 21, 1977, upon a jury verdict, in favor of the defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. It was proper for the trial court to exclude testimony regarding a prior accident where there was an insufficient foundation laid setting forth the similarity between the two occurrences. To admit that testimony would have permitted the jury to speculate as to how the subject accident took place. Such speculation, of course, cannot be countenanced (see Flansburg v Town of [933]*933Elbridge, 205 NY 423; see, also, Gilliard v Long Is. R. R., 45 NY2d 996). Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 21, 1977, upon a jury verdict, in favor of the defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. It was proper for the trial court to exclude testimony regarding a prior accident where there was an insufficient foundation laid setting forth the similarity between the two occurrences. To admit that testimony would have permitted the jury to speculate as to how the subject accident took place. Such speculation, of course, cannot be countenanced (see Flansburg v Town of [933]*933Elbridge, 205 NY 423; see, also, Gilliard v Long Is. R. R., 45 NY2d 996). Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 932, 417 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-alfieri-concrete-inc-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack