R.J. Cornelius, Inc. v. Cally

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R.J. Cornelius, Inc. v. Cally

158 A.D.2d 331, 551 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D.2d 331 (R.J. Cornelius, Inc. v. Cally) 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

R.J. Cornelius, Inc. v. Cally, 158 A.D.2d 331, 551 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[332]*332Insofar as pertinent, the action was brought to recover a loan acknowledged by defendant in a letter that defendant claims was forged. The trial court, however, crediting plaintiffs handwriting expert, found defendant’s signature on the letter to be genuine, a finding which we see no reason to disturb. It was not reversible error to permit plaintiffs expert to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of defendant’s expert (People v Felder, 39 AD2d 373, 379-380, affd 32 NY2d 747, appeal dismissed 414 US 948). Nor was it reversible error to allow plaintiff to impeach defendant by eliciting on cross-examination the disciplinary proceedings that had been brought against him (CPLR 4513; see, People v Lee, 35 AD2d 542 [impeachment of defendant by showing dishonorable discharge from Army after court-martial held proper]). Finally, defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to show, as part of its prima facie case, that delivery of the letter in question to plaintiff was authorized by defendant (citing UCC 3-306 [c]) was not raised at trial and therefore may not be considered on appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

[332]*332Insofar as pertinent, the action was brought to recover a loan acknowledged by defendant in a letter that defendant claims was forged. The trial court, however, crediting plaintiffs handwriting expert, found defendant’s signature on the letter to be genuine, a finding which we see no reason to disturb. It was not reversible error to permit plaintiffs expert to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of defendant’s expert (People v Felder, 39 AD2d 373, 379-380, affd 32 NY2d 747, appeal dismissed 414 US 948). Nor was it reversible error to allow plaintiff to impeach defendant by eliciting on cross-examination the disciplinary proceedings that had been brought against him (CPLR 4513; see, People v Lee, 35 AD2d 542 [impeachment of defendant by showing dishonorable discharge from Army after court-martial held proper]). Finally, defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to show, as part of its prima facie case, that delivery of the letter in question to plaintiff was authorized by defendant (citing UCC 3-306 [c]) was not raised at trial and therefore may not be considered on appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 331, 551 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rj-cornelius-inc-v-cally-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack