Albert v. Stumpf
| Decision Date | 17 June 1968 |
| Citation | 291 N.Y.S.2d 887,30 A.D.2d 686 |
| Parties | Allen D. ALBERT, Appellant, v. Thelma G. STUMPF, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Irving J. Goldsmith, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant; Benjamin H. Siff and Irving Payson Zinbarg, New York City, of counsel.
Benjamin Purvin, for defendant-respondent; Charles F. Brady, Baldwin, on the brief.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 15, 1968, in favor of defendant upon a jury verdict.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. The findings of fact are affirmed.
It was error to admit into evidence that portion of a police officer's accident report which set forth his opinion as to the cause of the accident (Marcus v. Greenwald, 28 A.D.2d 680, 282 N.Y.S.2d 667; Lea v. Segreto, 23 A.D.2d 759, 258 N.Y.S.2d 623). The trial court's subsequent curative instruction to the jury was not in language sufficiently explicit to preclude any inference that the jury might have been affected by it, in view of the highly prejudicial effect of this evidence in this close case (cf. Smulczeski v. City Center of Music and Drama, 3 N.Y.2d 498, 501, 169 N.Y.S.2d 1, 3, 146 N.E.2d 769, 770; Robinson v. City of New York, 5 A.D.2d 197, 199, 170 N.Y.S.2d 734, 737).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v. Donlan
...50 A.D.2d 851, 852, 376 N.Y.S.2d 603; Westmoreland v. Wilgo Realty Corp., 45 A.D.2d 887, 889, 358 N.Y.S.2d 165; Albert v. Stumpf, 30 A.D.2d 686, 687, 291 N.Y.S.2d 887). II The second issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the stopping distance of an au......
-
Neill v. Jodum Cab Corp.
...to the cause of the accident was inadmissible and constituted reversible error under the decisions of this court (Albert v. Stumpf, 30 A.D.2d 686, 687, 291 N.Y.S.2d 887, 888; Marcus v. Greenwald, 28 A.D.2d 680, 681, 282 N.Y.S.2d 667; Greene v. Ingoglia, 25 A.D.2d 773, 269 N.Y.S.2d 543; Sink......
-
Toll v. State
...to his conclusions, his written conclusions should have been excluded, if the report had been otherwise acceptable (Albert v. Stumpf, 30 A.D.2d 686, 291 N.Y.S.2d 887; Bothner v. Keegan, 275 App.Div. 470, 472, 89 N.Y.S.2d 288, 289). The business entry statute lifts the barrier of the hearsay......
-
Westmoreland v. Wilgo Realty Corp.
...which set forth his opinion as to the cause of the accident (Neill v. Jodum Cab Corp., 38 A.D.2d 562, 328 N.Y.S.2d 540; Albert v. Stumpf, 30 A.D.2d 686, 291 N.Y.S.2d 887). ...