From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henry v. Pasqua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 5, 1958
5 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

March 5, 1958

Appeal from the Onondaga Trial Term.

Present — McCurn, P.J., Kimball, Williams, Bastow and Goldman, JJ.


Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff, without sufficient foundation or proper justification, was permitted to interrupt the orderly process of the trial, place defendant's trial counsel on the stand during the course of defendant's case and introduce a letter written by the witness which created the inference that defendant had made a statement to the plaintiff inconsistent with the former's testimony. The atmosphere thus created, and the resulting confusion, was not effectively dissipated in the manner of the submission of the issues to the jury. In our view defendant was thereby denied a fair trial and in the interests of justice a new trial should be granted. ( Rudnick v. Tuckman, 1 A.D.2d 269, 272; Pioneer Credit Corp. v. San Miguel, 274 App. Div. 184, 191.) All concur.


Summaries of

Henry v. Pasqua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 5, 1958
5 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Henry v. Pasqua

Case Details

Full title:LUCAS HENRY et al., Respondents, v. PETER PASQUA, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 5, 1958

Citations

5 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Deutsch v. Doctors Hospital, Inc.

A new trial is required in the interests of justice. (See Paley v. Brust, 21 A.D.2d 758; Stanley v. Surface…