From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Honsberger v. Wilmot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 29, 1949
276 App. Div. 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

December 29, 1949.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Chemung County.

Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ.


There was no reversible error committed in the trial of these actions. The actions were in negligence and arose out of a collision between two automobiles. Appellants' counsel cross-examined Wilmot as to his having an operator's license at the time of the trial and developed the fact that he did not have one. Wilmot's counsel brought out the fact that the license was taken away under the motor vehicle law because he was not insured and did not have financial responsibility. This did not justify granting a mistrial. The appellants had opened the door by their cross-examination and cannot complain that the respondents developed the reason for not having a license. Compelling the appellants to proceed to trial after they requested adjournment to procure a dental examination of one of the respondents was within the discretion of the trial court. The cases had been on the day calendar for a day or two and announced ready for trial. On the morning when they were reached for trial the appellants asked for the dental examination. The court ordered the case to trial at 2:00 P.M. The respondent was present and offered to be examined. The appellants did not attempt to arrange for an examination. There is nothing to indicate they could not have had the examination if they had made a diligent effort. The testimony of respondents' physician, in which he gave an opinion involving X rays, was competent. The physician had had experience in taking X rays and also in reading them. He was not a specialist in that field but had sufficient training and experience to qualify. The weight of his testimony was involved but not its competency. Judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Honsberger v. Wilmot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 29, 1949
276 App. Div. 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Honsberger v. Wilmot

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES B. HONSBERGER, Appellant, v. THOMAS WILMOT, Respondent. WILLIAM…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 1949

Citations

276 App. Div. 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Citing Cases

People v. Balls

Consequently, we do not deem this comment as depriving defendant of a fair trial. Defendant's remaining…