From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burlingame v. G G Auto Repair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 22, 1996
229 A.D.2d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 22, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.).


Ordered that the order entered July 6, 1995, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the determination granting the motion of the defendant Slezak for a mistrial and, in effect, setting aside the jury's verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Slezak is vacated, the motion of the defendant Slezak is denied, and the jury's verdict is reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered November 1, 1995, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs payable by the defendant Slezak.

Under the circumstances presented, we agree with the appellants' contention that the sole, isolated, and unintentionally elicited reference made by the defendant William Coffey to a statement he provided to an insurance company representative for the defendant Slezak, was not so prejudicial as to warrant the granting of a mistrial ( see, Sakin v. Fryman, 147 A.D.2d 626; Manchester v. Bankhead Corp., 125 A.D.2d 740; Rush v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 92 A.D.2d 1072; Knapp v. Fulton County Natl. Bank Trust Co., 6 A.D.2d 742; Purdy v. McGarity, 262 App. Div. 623).

In light of the fact that we are reinstating the jury verdict, which was in favor of the appellants and against the defendant Slezak only, and exonerated the defendant Coffey from any liability, we need not consider the appellants' challenges to the November 1, 1995, order which granted the cross motion of the defendant Coffey dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Burlingame v. G G Auto Repair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 22, 1996
229 A.D.2d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Burlingame v. G G Auto Repair

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT BURLINGAME et al., Appellants, v. G G AUTO REPAIR, Defendant, and…

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

Date published: Jul 22, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 32

Citing Cases

Staltare v. D B Distributors, Inc.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff's…

Panzarino v. Weisberg

usal to charge successive tort liability based upon the decedent's already diminished life expectancy when…