Boehm v. Rosario

I respectfully dissent. As a general rule, “whether a defendant has or has not obtained insurance is irrelevant to the issues, and, since highly prejudicial, therefore, inadmissible” (Leotta v Plessinger, 8 NY2d 449, 461 [1960], rearg denied 9 NY2d 688 [1961], mot to amend remittitur granted 9 NY2d 686 [1961]; see Constable v Matie [appeal No. 3], 199 AD2d 1004, 1005 [1993]). Here, I conclude that plaintiff should be afforded a new trial because defendant’s attorney improperly implied to the jury that defendant lacked insurance coverage and that any award of damages would have to be paid out…