Robertson v. Giangrasso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robertson v. Giangrasso

7 A.D.2d 733, 180 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4115

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 733 (Robertson v. Giangrasso) 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

Robertson v. Giangrasso, 7 A.D.2d 733, 180 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the operator of a taxicab against the owner and operator of another motor vehicle to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received in a collision between the vehicles, the appeal is (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, entered on a verdict dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of said court denying a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, it was error to exclude the testimony proffered by appellant as to the condition of respondents’ vehicle and the photograph taken one-half hour after the accident away from the scene thereof. (Simon v. Ora Realty Corp., 1 N Y 2d 388; Scanna v. National Transp. Co., 262 App. Div. 853; McCulloch v. Dobson, 133 N. Y. 114.) Beldock, Acting P. J., Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The jury found for respondents on ample evidence. We find no proof in the record that respondents’ vehicle hit a rock which had been painted white, and to infer this from the white mark on the rod under the vehicle, shown in Exhibit 8 for identification which was excluded from evidence, would be pure speculation. In any event, the white marks on the bumper of the vehicle are shown on Exhibit 7 which was admitted to “ indicate the location of the impact”. Admission of the excluded photograph would, at most, have been cumulative.

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

In an action by the operator of a taxicab against the owner and operator of another motor vehicle to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received in a collision between the vehicles, the appeal is (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, entered on a verdict dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of said court denying a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, it was error to exclude the testimony proffered by appellant as to the condition of respondents’ vehicle and the photograph taken one-half hour after the accident away from the scene thereof. (Simon v. Ora Realty Corp., 1 N Y 2d 388; Scanna v. National Transp. Co., 262 App. Div. 853; McCulloch v. Dobson, 133 N. Y. 114.) Beldock, Acting P. J., Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The jury found for respondents on ample evidence. We find no proof in the record that respondents’ vehicle hit a rock which had been painted white, and to infer this from the white mark on the rod under the vehicle, shown in Exhibit 8 for identification which was excluded from evidence, would be pure speculation. In any event, the white marks on the bumper of the vehicle are shown on Exhibit 7 which was admitted to “ indicate the location of the impact”. Admission of the excluded photograph would, at most, have been cumulative.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 733, 180 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-giangrasso-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack