Croff v. Kearns
| Decision Date | 12 January 1968 |
| Citation | 29 A.D.2d 703,286 N.Y.S.2d 119 |
| Parties | Ernest G. CROFF, Respondent, v. J. J. KEARNS, Sr., doing business as J. J. Kearns Agency et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Walter L. Bellcourt, Cobleskill, for respondent.
Donohue, Bohl, Clayton & Komar, Myron Komar, Albany, for appellants.
Before HERLIHY, J.P., and REYNOLDS, AULISI, STALEY and GABRIELLI, JJ.
HERLIHY, Justice Presiding.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a negligence action and from an order denying a motion to set aside the verdict.
This appeal primarily concerns certain rulings made by the court in the course of the trial.
The manner of the procedure of a trial is within the discretion of the trial justice and when, as here, he determined that the defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff, it does not appear that it was error to preclude further cross-examination of the plaintiff upon the defendant's case. Assuming that some other court might have ruled differently, there is no showing of prejudice in the present case in view of the fact that a doctor called as a witness by the defendant testified as to the matters which were the subject of the precluded questioning of the plaintiff.
Further alleged error concerns the testimony as to subsequent repairs of the steps where the alleged accident occurred, albeit apparently not argued before the trial court on the motion to set aside the verdict.
The answer of the original defendants denied the allegation in the complaint as to control over the premises, but at the trial their counsel conceded such control. Nevertheless, the court permitted testimony of subsequent repairs which, under the circumstances, was immaterial and irrelevant and objections to such testimony should have been sustained. However, in consideration of the clear showing of a negligent condition at the time of the happening of the accident, such testimony was not so prejudicial as to now require a new trial, particularly when the court in its charge advised the jury that such testimony was limited to the issue of control and no exception or request was noted.
The other alleged errors are without merit, but we note that the attack upon the appellant's counsel in the respondent's brief is unwarranted and in no way supported by objections in the record. It was not considered in deciding the merits of this appeal.
The verdict was not excessive.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
The judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed and a new trial ordered, in the interests of justice, because of prejudicial error in permitting evidence of repairs subsequent to the alleged accident on the pretext that it was being introduced to show control. Certain it is, that the Court of Appeals in Scudero v. Campbell, 288 N.Y. 328, 43 N.E.2d 66, created an exception to the well recognized general rule of exclusion of evidence of subsequent repairs by allowing same where a legitimate issue as to control exists. But here control was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klatz v. Armor Elevator Co., Inc.
...of the request by plaintiffs, counsel alerted Special Term to Getty v. Town of Hamlin, 127 N.Y. 636, 27 N.E. 399, and Croff v. Kearns, 29 A.D.2d 703, 286 N.Y.S.2d 119, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 718, 291 N.Y.S.2d 821, 238 N.E.2d 927, for the proposition that subsequent service and repair records could......
-
Smyth v. Upjohn Co.
...exception the state courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the general validity and applicability of the rule. See, e.g., Croff v. Kearns, 29 A.D.2d 703, 286 N.Y.S.2d 119, affd., 22 N.Y.2d 718, 291 N.Y.S.2d 821, 238 N.E.2d 927 The arguments advanced by appellants are hardly of sufficient compell......
-
Shvets v. Landau
...127 NY 636 , supra; Clapper v Town of Waterford, 131 NY 382 ; Cahill v Kleinberg, 233 NY 255 ; Scudero v Campbell, 288 NY 328 ; Croff v Kearns, 29 AD2d 703 , affd 22 NY2d 718 [291 N.Y.S.2d 821, 238 N.E.2d 927], supra; Barone v 111 East 39th St. Corp., 38 AD2d 797 ; Carollo v Rose, 43 AD2d 8......
-
Mable v. 384 E. Assocs., LLC
...127 N.Y. 636.; Clapper v Town of Waterford, 131 N.Y. 382,; Cahill v Kleinberg, 233 N.Y. 255,; Scudero v Campbell, 288 N.Y. 328,; Croff v Kearns, 29 A.D.2d 703,; Barone v 111 East 39th St. Corp., 38 A.D.2d 797; Carollo v Rose, 43 A.D.2d 831). Based on the record, the elevator in question has......