Stracher v. Corning Glass Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stracher v. Corning Glass Works

39 A.D.2d 560, 331 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5010

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

DecidedApril 10, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 560 (Stracher v. Corning Glass Works) 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

Stracher v. Corning Glass Works, 39 A.D.2d 560, 331 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on negligence and breach of warranty, the defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 27, 1971, in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability. Judgment reversed on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Reversible error was committed when plaintiff’s expert was permitted to assume a fact, not previously nor subsequently established, that the flask was nonhomogeneous and from it to [561]*561infer what caused the flask to cleave. It is settled law that opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record and that an expert may not reach his conclusion by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence (Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N Y 2d 643, 646). Furthermore, to the extent that the witness sought to indicate that the flask in question was nonhomogeneous because the flask he examined was nonhomogeneous, his testimony was inadmissible because there was no proof that the flasks were the same (Graham, v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 19 A D 2d 635; Cromer v. Gull Corp., 5 A D 2d 850; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Dunham, 242 App. Div. 307). In fact, the flask he examined was made several years after the one which cleaved. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, 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 based on negligence and breach of warranty, the defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 27, 1971, in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability. Judgment reversed on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Reversible error was committed when plaintiff’s expert was permitted to assume a fact, not previously nor subsequently established, that the flask was nonhomogeneous and from it to [561]*561infer what caused the flask to cleave. It is settled law that opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record and that an expert may not reach his conclusion by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence (Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N Y 2d 643, 646). Furthermore, to the extent that the witness sought to indicate that the flask in question was nonhomogeneous because the flask he examined was nonhomogeneous, his testimony was inadmissible because there was no proof that the flasks were the same (Graham, v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 19 A D 2d 635; Cromer v. Gull Corp., 5 A D 2d 850; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Dunham, 242 App. Div. 307). In fact, the flask he examined was made several years after the one which cleaved. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 560, 331 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stracher-v-corning-glass-works-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack