From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lizzo v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 1955
286 App. Div. 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)

Opinion

October 10, 1955.


In an action to recover damages for injury to plaintiff's automobile resulting from a collision between automobiles owned and operated by plaintiff and defendant respectively, defendant counterclaimed to recover damages for injury to his automobile. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, entered upon a verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiff's cause of action and in favor of the defendant upon his counterclaim. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The trial court erred in permitting cross-examination of the plaintiff with respect to his involvement in prior accidents. ( Grenadier v. Surface Transp. Corp. of N.Y., 271 App. Div. 460. ) In view of the sharp conflict in the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant, who were the only witnesses called, we may not disregard the error by virtue of section 106 of the Civil Practice Act. Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lizzo v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 1955
286 App. Div. 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)
Case details for

Lizzo v. O'Connor

Case Details

Full title:GERALD LIZZO, Appellant, v. STEPHEN O'CONNOR, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 10, 1955

Citations

286 App. Div. 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)

Citing Cases

Molinari v. Conforti Eisele, Inc.

Similarly, the cross-examination as to a prior arm injury was relevant to the issue of disability, as well as…

Kirkpatrick v. Fesinger

Therefore, the error may not be disregarded on the ground that it was not prejudicial. It has been repeatedly…