Swanson v. Evans Oil Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swanson v. Evans Oil Inc.

12 A.D.2d 875, 209 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13495

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 875 (Swanson v. Evans Oil Inc.) 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

Swanson v. Evans Oil Inc., 12 A.D.2d 875, 209 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: In this appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in a death action, the appellant contends that the unanimous jury verdict was prejudicially influenced by improper questions tending to show that the plaintiff was entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits and by statements made by defendants’ counsel in summation that the defendant had been exonerated by the Coroner and the Motor Vehicle Department. There is nothing in the record to justify either the questions or the statements in summation. The attempt to show that the plaintiff was entitled to workmen’s compensation was improper. (Johnson v. Gianino, 279 App. Div. 760; Lisanti v. Kenney Co., 225 App. Div. 129, affd. 250 N. Y. 621; Posnick v. Crystal, 181 App. Div. 660.) It was likewise error to state that the Motor Vehicle Department had taken no adverse action. (Tyron v. Willbank, 234 App. Div. 335; Kopp v. Hoffman, 280 App. Div. 954.) The improper matter cast upon the defendants the burden of showing that it did not influence the verdict rendered. (Manigold v. Black Riv. Traction Co., 81 App. Div. 381, 385.) Where counsel propounds a question which he must be assumed to know cannot be properly answered, the error is not cured by the Trial Judge’s ruling sustaining an objection thereto. (Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507.) It was not necessary to move for a mistrial. (Smith v. Majestic Iron Works, 2 N Y 2d 544.) Willfulness is a factor to be considered and is demonstrated by repetition of the error. (Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747.) In the present case, it cannot be said that the jury may not have been influenced by the improper matter. The judgment, therefore, should be reversed and a new trial granted. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus Trial Term for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: In this appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in a death action, the appellant contends that the unanimous jury verdict was prejudicially influenced by improper questions tending to show that the plaintiff was entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits and by statements made by defendants’ counsel in summation that the defendant had been exonerated by the Coroner and the Motor Vehicle Department. There is nothing in the record to justify either the questions or the statements in summation. The attempt to show that the plaintiff was entitled to workmen’s compensation was improper. (Johnson v. Gianino, 279 App. Div. 760; Lisanti v. Kenney Co., 225 App. Div. 129, affd. 250 N. Y. 621; Posnick v. Crystal, 181 App. Div. 660.) It was likewise error to state that the Motor Vehicle Department had taken no adverse action. (Tyron v. Willbank, 234 App. Div. 335; Kopp v. Hoffman, 280 App. Div. 954.) The improper matter cast upon the defendants the burden of showing that it did not influence the verdict rendered. (Manigold v. Black Riv. Traction Co., 81 App. Div. 381, 385.) Where counsel propounds a question which he must be assumed to know cannot be properly answered, the error is not cured by the Trial Judge’s ruling sustaining an objection thereto. (Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507.) It was not necessary to move for a mistrial. (Smith v. Majestic Iron Works, 2 N Y 2d 544.) Willfulness is a factor to be considered and is demonstrated by repetition of the error. (Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 App. Div. 747.) In the present case, it cannot be said that the jury may not have been influenced by the improper matter. The judgment, therefore, should be reversed and a new trial granted. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus Trial Term for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 875, 209 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swanson-v-evans-oil-inc-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack