Levo v. Greenwald

Levine and Harvey, JJ.,

dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum by Harvey, J. Harvey, J. (dissenting). We respectfully disagree with the majority. Although they appear to have tacitly agreed that evidence of the State’s interest in the verdict would have been lawful, if admitted, they conclude that, under all the circumstances of the trial, the court’s error was not sufficiently prejudicial to defendant Martha B. Greenwald (hereafter defendant) on her claim against Charles Diggins (hereafter third-party defendant) to warrant a new trial. They suggest that because the third-party…