Schenker v. Bourne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schenker v. Bourne

278 A.D. 699, 102 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4411

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 699 (Schenker v. Bourne) 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

Schenker v. Bourne, 278 A.D. 699, 102 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action to recover damages for injuries sustained, and for expenses and loss of services, judgment in favor of respondent and against plaintiffs reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Admission of evidence that other actions, instituted by two parties who are not parties to this action, against plaintiff Janet B. Schenker and the respondent in this action, who were the respective drivers of the two automobiles involved in the accident, had been settled and discontinued before the trial of this action, upon payment on behalf of plaintiff Janet B. Schenker, was prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case, and could serve no legitimate purpose. (Cochrane v. Fahey, 245 App. Div. 41; Baesens v. New York Central R. R. Co., 201 App. Div. 191; Woodland v.« Cote, 252 App. Div. 254.) These third parties were not witnesses at the trial of this case and, therefore, the [700]*700admission of the evidence could not be justified on a theory that it might affect their credibility as witnesses, as in Keet v. Murrin (235 App. Div. 882, affd. 260 IST. ■ Y. 586). Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ,, concur; Holán, P. J., not voting.

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

In a consolidated action to recover damages for injuries sustained, and for expenses and loss of services, judgment in favor of respondent and against plaintiffs reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Admission of evidence that other actions, instituted by two parties who are not parties to this action, against plaintiff Janet B. Schenker and the respondent in this action, who were the respective drivers of the two automobiles involved in the accident, had been settled and discontinued before the trial of this action, upon payment on behalf of plaintiff Janet B. Schenker, was prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case, and could serve no legitimate purpose. (Cochrane v. Fahey, 245 App. Div. 41; Baesens v. New York Central R. R. Co., 201 App. Div. 191; Woodland v.« Cote, 252 App. Div. 254.) These third parties were not witnesses at the trial of this case and, therefore, the [700]*700admission of the evidence could not be justified on a theory that it might affect their credibility as witnesses, as in Keet v. Murrin (235 App. Div. 882, affd. 260 IST. ■ Y. 586). Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ,, concur; Holán, P. J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 699, 102 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenker-v-bourne-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack