Sobel v. Levy

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sobel v. Levy

97 Misc. 13, 160 N.Y.S. 1049

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 97 Misc. 13 (Sobel v. Levy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sobel v. Levy, 97 Misc. 13, 160 N.Y.S. 1049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Bijur, J.

Appellant Levy and James A. Hearn & Son were sued for damages for personal injuries arising out of an alleged joint tort, namely, the negligence of their respective employees in the conduct of two automobiles.

It developed at the trial that the action had during the course thereof been discontinued as against Hearn [14]*14& Son. Appellant Levy was permitted to ask plaintiff’s counsel whether the discontinuance was under an agreement with the attorney of Hearn & Son, to which an affirmative answer was given. He then asked: “ Will you tell us whether under that agreement any sum of money was paid or promised to be paid to plaintiff? ” An objection to this question was sustained and appellant’s counsel excepted. Objections, to two other questions to the same general effect were similarly sustained.

As I understand respondent’s brief, he concedes that plaintiff could have but one satisfaction for his injury. He does not answer appellant’s claim that the amount, if any, received from one of the joint tort feasors should be taken into account by the jury in its award of damages. It is evident, therefore, that the testimony excluded was relevant, material and competent, and that its exclusion constituted such important error that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Guy and Shearn, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event..

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

Bijur, J.

Appellant Levy and James A. Hearn & Son were sued for damages for personal injuries arising out of an alleged joint tort, namely, the negligence of their respective employees in the conduct of two automobiles.

It developed at the trial that the action had during the course thereof been discontinued as against Hearn [14]*14& Son. Appellant Levy was permitted to ask plaintiff’s counsel whether the discontinuance was under an agreement with the attorney of Hearn & Son, to which an affirmative answer was given. He then asked: “ Will you tell us whether under that agreement any sum of money was paid or promised to be paid to plaintiff? ” An objection to this question was sustained and appellant’s counsel excepted. Objections, to two other questions to the same general effect were similarly sustained.

As I understand respondent’s brief, he concedes that plaintiff could have but one satisfaction for his injury. He does not answer appellant’s claim that the amount, if any, received from one of the joint tort feasors should be taken into account by the jury in its award of damages. It is evident, therefore, that the testimony excluded was relevant, material and competent, and that its exclusion constituted such important error that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Guy and Shearn, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 Misc. 13, 160 N.Y.S. 1049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sobel-v-levy-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack