Andresen v. Kirschner

• Decision Date: 15 August 2002
• Citation: Andresen v. Kirschner, 297 A.D.2d 235, 746 N.Y.S.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
• Parties: JOSEPH ANDRESEN et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>HANNAH KIRSCHNER et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

297 A.D.2d 235

746 N.Y.S.2d 258

JOSEPH ANDRESEN et al., Respondents,

v.HANNAH KIRSCHNER et al., Appellants.

Decided August 15, 2002.

Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

During the trial of this personal injury action, defense counsel, on cross-examination, elicited from plaintiff testimony admitting that he had previously asserted a claim based on the same motor vehicle accident against Kevin Leeks, who is not a party to this action, and had settled that claim. Although plaintiffs' counsel successfully objected to inquiry into the amount of the settlement, no objection was made to the line of inquiry seeking to establish the fact of the settlement with Leeks. Nor did plaintiffs' counsel make any effort, prior to verdict, to have the testimony concerning the settlement excluded from the jury's consideration. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, finding, inter alia, that Leeks had been the driver at fault in the accident, plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) for an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, on the ground that the admission of evidence concerning the settlement had violated CPLR 4547. In granting this motion, the...