Barbagallo v. Americana Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. The exclusion of the telephone conversations was error because they were relevant to establishing the duration and depth of defendant’s alleged fear. The truth of their contents was not the purpose of defendant’s offer. (Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N Y 2d 16, 19-20; Eichardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 211.) It cannot be concluded that, as a matter of law, the jury would not have been influenced by the additional details in assessing defendant’s alleged fear of injury to himself or his family. The request as to the effect of the failure of plaintiff’s wife to testify was improper inform…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Badr v. HoganNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Coleman v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Platovsky v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Liberto v. Worcester Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Disalvo v. BortleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.