From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perrin v. Winne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1986
123 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

October 2, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Ruskin, J.).


Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We find unpersuasive the plaintiffs contention that the trial court erroneously refused to give the jury an "interested witness" charge with respect to two witnesses. The mere fact that one of the witnesses is the defendant David R. Winne's brother was insufficient, standing alone, to warrant such an instruction. Indeed, this familial relationship was at most indicative of a potential bias in his testimony, and the plaintiff had a full opportunity both to explore this issue and to attempt to discredit the witness during cross-examination (see generally, Coleman v New York City Tr. Auth., 37 N.Y.2d 137; Levo v Greenwald, 107 A.D.2d 991, affd 66 N.Y.2d 962; cf. People v Jackson, 80 A.D.2d 904). Moreover, the court properly instructed the jurors that they should consider the "motives" of the respective witnesses for testifying in evaluating their veracity. Under these circumstances, we discern no error in the court's refusal to give an "interested witness" charge with respect to the defendant David R. Winne's brother. Additionally, we note that the other allegedly biased witness was called by the plaintiff and did not give any testimony favoring the defendants; hence, there was no basis for an "interested witness" charge with regard to him.

Likewise, we reject the plaintiff's contention that the court was required to charge Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1151 (a), concerning the duty of a driver to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian who is crossing the roadway within a crosswalk. The evidence adduced at trial, including the testimony of the plaintiff himself, established that he was not situated within a crosswalk at the time he was struck by the defendant Robert L. Winne's vehicle. Thus, there was no factual basis for giving the requested charge.

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Perrin v. Winne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1986
123 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Perrin v. Winne

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT PERRIN, Appellant, v. DAVID R. WINNE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1986

Citations

123 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Schonfeld v. Brody

The appellant's contention that an interested witness charge should have been given with respect to the…

Reichert v. City of New York

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention on appeal, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible…