Capone v. New York City Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
| Citation | 29 A.D.2d 951,289 N.Y.S.2d 239 |
| Parties | Ciro CAPONE, Appellant-Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., Respondents-Appellants. (and a third-party action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dora Aberlin, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.
Francis P. Cunnion, New York City, for defendant-respondent-appellant, New York City Housing Authority.
Olmstead, Craig & Geen, New York City, for defendant-respondent-appellant, H.R.H. Construction Corp.; John Nielsen, New York City, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, HOPKINS, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff and defendants cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 16, 1966, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, whose appeal is on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of the verdict.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed.
During the course of trial, defendants were properly permitted to cross-examine plaintiff with regard to a bill of particulars which he had verified in an action arising out of a prior accident, as the bill set forth injuries similar to those claimed to have been sustained by him in the instant case (see Bowers v. Johnson, 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 106; Petersen v. Forty-Five Nevins St. Corp., 22 A.D.2d 960, 256 N.Y.S.2d 113, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 885, 271 N.Y.S.2d 311, 218 N.E.2d 343). We are of the opinion, however, that it was error to refuse to permit plaintiff to introduce those other portions of the bill which served to qualify the apparent seriousness of the prior injury. The effect of the error and of the prejudicial remarks made by counsel for one of the defendants in summation mandates a new trial in the interests of justice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molinari v. Conforti & Eisele, Inc.
...as that for which a present claim is made, cross-examination concerning the earlier injury is appropriate (Capone v. New York City Housing Authority, 29 A.D.2d 951, 289 N.Y.S.2d 239, mod. 33 A.D.2d 776, 307 N.Y.S.2d 823; Bowers v. Johnson, 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 106; Petersen v. Forty-......
-
King v. Barron
...117 N.W.2d at 563 (emphasis added). See also Kucza v. Stone, 155 Conn. 194, 230 A.2d 559 (1967), and Capone v. New York City Hous. Auth., 29 A.D.2d 951, 289 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1968), for additional examples of the right of a plaintiff to explain on redirect examination the circumstances surround......
-
Payne v. New Hyde Park Dodge
...of particulars constitute informal judicial admissions (see, Fisch, New York Evidence § 803, at 475 [2d ed]; Capone v. New York City Housing Auth., 29 A.D.2d 951, 289 N.Y.S.2d 239, mod on other grounds 33 A.D.2d 776, 307 N.Y.S.2d 828), and while they do not conclusively establish the facts ......
-
Capone v. New York City Housing Authority
...of fact below have not been affirmed.' Order dated April 8, 1968, which was entered on said decision, amended accordingly. 29 A.D.2d 951, 289 N.Y.S.2d 239. BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, HOPKINS, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ., ...