From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin Linker v. Sears Roebuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1996
232 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 28, 1996.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), entered August 9, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Before: Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to show that the accidents referred to in the trial transcript in an unrelated case were substantially similar to the injured plaintiff's accident, the trial court did not commit reversible error in excluding a portion of that trial transcript from evidence ( see, e.g., Sawyer v Dreis Krump Mfg. Co., 67 NY2d 328; Vega v Jacobs, 84 AD2d 813).

Furthermore, the scope of cross-examination and the determination of the evidence which may be introduced for impeachment purposes lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there was an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, e.g., Murphy v Estate of Vece, 173 AD2d 445). The record indicates that the trial court properly exercised its discretion.


Summaries of

Franklin Linker v. Sears Roebuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1996
232 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Franklin Linker v. Sears Roebuck

Case Details

Full title:FRANKLIN LINKER et al., Appellants, v. SEARS ROEBUCK CO., Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 28, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 1002

Citing Cases

Sehgal v. Www.Nyairportsbus.Com, Inc.

The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The defendants…

Grasso v. Koslowe

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion under CPLR 4404 (a) in setting aside the jury verdict…