Ross v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. Schwartz

48 A.D.2d 844, 368 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061

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

DecidedJune 2, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 844 (Ross v. Schwartz) 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

Ross v. Schwartz, 48 A.D.2d 844, 368 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 15, 1974, in favor of plaintiff, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appeal presented no questions of fact. The trial court committed error in refusing to allow a defense witness to testify to an alleged declaration by plaintiff which was entirely inconsistent with his position at trial (see Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], ch X, Admissions). There was no bar to the admission on any ground; the fact that the witness is a medical doctor is irrelevant. Whether his testimony was incredible was an issue for the jury. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Christ and Munder, JJ., concur; Latham and Cohalan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

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, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 15, 1974, in favor of plaintiff, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appeal presented no questions of fact. The trial court committed error in refusing to allow a defense witness to testify to an alleged declaration by plaintiff which was entirely inconsistent with his position at trial (see Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], ch X, Admissions). There was no bar to the admission on any ground; the fact that the witness is a medical doctor is irrelevant. Whether his testimony was incredible was an issue for the jury. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Christ and Munder, JJ., concur; Latham and Cohalan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 844, 368 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack