From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eisner v. Daitch Crystal Dairies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 1967
27 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Summary

In Eisner u Daitch Crystal Dairies (27 AD2d 921), also cited by the majority, this Court did rule that the trial court should have permitted certain rebuttal testimony; however, the bases for reversal and a new trial were improper statements by the trial court in the presence of the jury and an inadequate jury charge, not the exclusion of the rebuttal witness.

Summary of this case from Vinci v. Ford Motor

Opinion

April 20, 1967


Judgment, entered on a verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability, unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law, on the facts and in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered on said issue, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. It appears that if the plaintiff had been permitted to recall herself, her testimony may have contradicted, impeached or discredited material testimony of defendant's witness, the store manager. Therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny plaintiffs' right to testify in rebuttal following the close of defendant's case. (See Ankersmit v. Tuch, 114 N.Y. 51; see, also, 8 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 56:107.) Furthermore, on the record here, there was no justification for the questioning of plaintiffs' counsel by the trial court, in the presence of the jury, as to whether or not there had been a motion made to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and, when counsel refused to answer the question, for the trial court to state, "I'm not going to force you to answer it and the jury can draw their own conclusions." Plaintiffs' motion for a mistrial, then made, should have been granted. (See Habenicht v. RKO Theatres, 23 A.D.2d 378; Salzano v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 656.) Finally, the charge of the trial court with reference to the issues and applicable law appertaining to the alleged negligence of the defendant was inadequate, and this requires a new trial in the interests of justice. ( Poyas v. RKO Theatres, 14 A.D.2d 358; U.S. Vitamin Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Capitol Cold Storage Co., 21 A.D.2d 661. )

Concur — Botein, P.J., Stevens, Eager, Rabin and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Eisner v. Daitch Crystal Dairies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 1967
27 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

In Eisner u Daitch Crystal Dairies (27 AD2d 921), also cited by the majority, this Court did rule that the trial court should have permitted certain rebuttal testimony; however, the bases for reversal and a new trial were improper statements by the trial court in the presence of the jury and an inadequate jury charge, not the exclusion of the rebuttal witness.

Summary of this case from Vinci v. Ford Motor
Case details for

Eisner v. Daitch Crystal Dairies, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SADIE EISNER et al., Appellants, v. DAITCH CRYSTAL DAIRIES, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 20, 1967

Citations

27 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Vinci v. Ford Motor

He would have further testified that defendant failed to comply with industry standards requiring that the…

Van Horn Lodge, Inc. v. Ahearn

VHL also contends this would be impeachment evidence, but the allowance of impeachment-type rebuttal is…