S & W X-Ray of Rochester, New York, Inc. v. Richard Maselli Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On this appeal from a judgment following a jury trial, defendant contends that it was inappropriate for plaintiffs counsel to comment about the fact that the manufacturer of the clamp, which was used by defendant in repairing plaintiffs fire sprinkler system, was not a party to the lawsuit. Defendant’s counsel raised that issue in his opening statement and on cross-examination and thus opened the door for comment by plaintiffs counsel (see, Cerasuoli v Brevetti, 166 AD2d 403). The other alleged improprieties in the summation of plaintiffs…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ciesinski v. Town of AuroraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Milau Associates, Inc. v. North Avenue Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Rohring v. City of Niagara FallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Rohring v. City of Niagara FallsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dillon v. KaminskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Grooms v. Davidson Chevrolet Oldsmobile CadillacWatertown City Court · 2005