From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Water Wheel Inn, Inc. v. Exchange Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 17, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the jury's determination that the president of the plaintiff intentionally caused or procured the fire which destroyed its premises ( see, 3910 Super K v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 219 A.D.2d 589; Home Ins. Co. v. Karantonis, 156 A.D.2d 844; Weed v. American Home Assur. Co., 91 A.D.2d 750). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).

We further find no merit to the plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred by refusing to permit a witness to testify that its president had "passed" a polygraph test administered in connection with the investigation into the fire. Although polygraph evidence may be admissible under certain circumstances in administrative proceedings where compliance with the rules of evidence is not required ( see, Matter of Sowa v. Looney, 23 N.Y.2d 329, 333; Matter of Motell v. Napolitano, 186 A.D.2d 989; May v. Shaw, 79 A.D.2d 970), the reliability of polygraph testing has not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty to render such test results admissible in judicial proceedings in this State ( see, People v. Shedrick, 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 1018; Pereira v. Pereira, 35 N.Y.2d 301, 306).

In addition, the court properly precluded the plaintiff from asking two witnesses for their opinion as to whether its president was innocent of arson. To permit these witnesses to offer their opinion about who committed the arson would be to determine the ultimate issue in this case and usurp the function of the jury ( see, Kulak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 140, 148; Franco v. Muro, 224 A.D.2d 579; Nevins v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 164 A.D.2d 807, 808-809).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Water Wheel Inn, Inc. v. Exchange Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Water Wheel Inn, Inc. v. Exchange Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:WATER WHEEL INN, INC., Appellant, v. EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent

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

Date published: May 17, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 622

Citing Cases

Barbera v. 40 Broad Delaware, Inc.

It is for this reason that courts have advised that the threshold question under Frye in passing on the…

Wilson v. Corestaff Servs. L.P.

Expert testimony offered to bolster the credibility of a fact witness has been appropriately excluded. (…