Salvio v. Idone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salvio v. Idone

112 A.D.2d 210, 491 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55959

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 210 (Salvio v. Idone) 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

Salvio v. Idone, 112 A.D.2d 210, 491 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Goldberg, J.), dated May 9, 1983, which, after a jury trial, was in favor of defendants Idone dismissing the complaint as to them.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[211]*211Although we agree with appellants’ contentions that evidence of codefendant Carino’s default in appearance and his hearsay statements were improperly admitted into evidence, we find that these errors were harmless. The jury’s special verdict found that appellant Clement Sal vio was contributorily negligent and, inasmuch as this finding is amply supported by untainted evidence in the record, and the accident in question occurred prior to the effective date of the comparative negligence law, the judgment must be affirmed. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Goldberg, J.), dated May 9, 1983, which, after a jury trial, was in favor of defendants Idone dismissing the complaint as to them.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[211]*211Although we agree with appellants’ contentions that evidence of codefendant Carino’s default in appearance and his hearsay statements were improperly admitted into evidence, we find that these errors were harmless. The jury’s special verdict found that appellant Clement Sal vio was contributorily negligent and, inasmuch as this finding is amply supported by untainted evidence in the record, and the accident in question occurred prior to the effective date of the comparative negligence law, the judgment must be affirmed. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 210, 491 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvio-v-idone-nyappdiv-1985.