From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riffel v. Brumburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 17, 1982
91 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

December 17, 1982

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from a jury's verdict of no cause of action returned in a wrongful death action. The fatality occurred when decedent's car collided with the rear end of a tractor trailer truck stopped in traffic preparatory to making a left-hand turn. We agree that certain comments made by defense counsel during summation were improper. Repeated "excesses" by counsel in attempts to discredit an opponent's expert may be prejudicial. This is particularly true when counsel's comments go so far as to imply dishonest motives, or that monetary considerations were paramount without regard for the truth ( La Russo v Pollack, 88 A.D.2d 584; Caraballo v City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 580; Taormina v Goodman, 63 A.D.2d 1018; Bishin v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 20 A.D.2d 921). The series of summation comments by defense counsel, particularly the attorney for Brumburg and Momsen Trucking Company, taken cumulatively, were objectionable and are prejudicial to the plaintiff. However, given the very strong evidence of lack of fault on defendant's part in this case, reversal based on counsel's comments is not warranted. We have reviewed the other issues raised by plaintiff and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

Riffel v. Brumburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 17, 1982
91 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Riffel v. Brumburg

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN M. RIFFEL, Individually and as Executor of LILLIAN RIFFEL, Deceased…

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

Date published: Dec 17, 1982

Citations

91 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Those documents included (1) an answer filed by the defendant in another action which stated that the general…

Parmar v. Skinner

While the remark was improper, it was not prejudicial since the jury was already aware that Skinner had been…