Legal Opinion

Holtz v. Aldridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 31, 1998No. Appeal No. 1Published

1Opinion of the Court

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs sole contention on appeal is that various remarks by defense counsel in summation were so unfair and prejudicial as to require a new trial. Plaintiff failed to move for a mistrial until after the jury rendered its verdict, and thus the motion was untimely (see, Taylor v Dayton Suregrip & Shore Co., 64 AD2d 809, 810). Although the remarks by defense counsel were improper, plaintiffs objections to those remarks were sustained *1199by Supreme Court, which immediately gave curative instructions. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Taylor v. Dayton Suregrip & Shore Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API