Butigian v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
| Citation | 740 N.Y.S.2d 305,293 A.D.2d 251 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Decision Date | 02 April 2002 |
| Parties | MARK M. BUTIGIAN et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY et al., Appellants.<BR>GUY CARPENTER & CO., INC., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>COMPUTERCOOL AIR CONDITIONING CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. |
This personal injury action arises out of plaintiff Mark M. Butigian's fall off a ladder while working for his employer, third-party defendant Computercool Air Conditioning Corp. (Computercool). Computercool, a subcontractor, had been retained by defendant and third-party plaintiff John Gallin & Son, Inc., which had been hired as the general contractor by defendant and third-party plaintiff Guy Carpenter & Co., Inc. (Carpenter) for a renovation project in a building owned by defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in which Carpenter was a tenant.
Defendants and third-party defendant all contend that plaintiffs' counsel's reference, during summation, to the fact that the companies maintained insurance coverage was so prejudicial, especially when considered in conjunction with counsel's accusations of corporate greed, as to warrant a new trial. We agree and reverse.
During summation, plaintiffs' counsel opined that:
Savas, however, had merely testified that Computercool did not own scaffolds ("[y]ou rent scaffolds"), and that Computercool had not rented any scaffolds for the work in question; Savas never made any statement regarding insurance. Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel, in addition to arguing during summation that Computercool was negligent because it had insurance, also suggested that the already deep-pocketed "major corporations" in the "cold and callous * * * construction industry" would be unaffected by a large award.
While plaintiffs may be correct that most jurors are aware that construction companies tend to carry insurance for personal injuries, plaintiffs' counsel went far beyond that threshold by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of cases
...2013), § 16:115 Butera v. Schaefer, 251 A.D.2d 976, 674 N.Y.S.2d 249 (4th Dept. 1998), § 16:60 Butigan v. Port Authority of NY & NJ, 293 A.D.2d 251, 740 N.Y.S.2d 305 (1st Dept. 2003), §§ 3:140, 19:140 Butler v. New York City Housing Authority , 26 A.D. 352, 810 N.Y.S.2d 209 (2d Dept. 2006),......
-
Opening statement
...a mistrial. Oltarsh v. Aetna Insurance Co ., 15 N.Y.2d 111, 256 N.Y.S.2d 577 (1965); Butigan v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey , 293 A.D.2d 251, 740 N.Y.S.2d 305 (1st Dept 2002); Kowalski v. Loblaws, Inc ., 61 A.D.2d 340, 402 N.Y.S.2d 681 (4th Dept. 1978). However, the rule preclud......
-
Summation
...he fact that the defendant has insurance to pay for injury or loss has no bearing on the case. Butigan v. Port Authority of NY & NJ , 293 A.D.2d 251, 740 N.Y.S. 2d 305 (1st Dept. 2003); Masone v. Gianotti , 54 A.D.2d 269, 388 N.Y.S.2d 322 (2d Dept. 1976); hiele v. Hickey , 6 A.D.2d 939, 175......
-
Opening statement
...as to require a mistrial. Oltarsh v. Aetna Insur. Co ., 15 N.Y.2d 111, 256 N.Y.S.2d 577 (1965); Butigan v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 293 A.D.2d 251, 740 N.Y.S.2d 305 (1st Dept 2002); Kowalski v. Loblaws, Inc ., 61 A.D.2d 340, 402 N.Y.S.2d 681 (4th Dept. 1978). However, the rule precluding......