Legal Opinion

Ammerman v. Utilities Oil Corp.

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

Decided February 3, 1928PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.

Evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of defendant’s negligence and of plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence was presented. Affirmance of the judgment would follow, were it not for prejudicial error committed.

The plaintiff had settled with another party claimed by him to have been jointly liable with this defendant and had received the sum of $500. This fact was elicited on plaintiff’s cross-examination for the purpose, as indicated by defendant’s counsel, of mitigating the amount of recovery against this defendant. For such purpose the evidence was entirely competent (Knapp v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Knapp v. . RocheNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Walsh v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Livant v. LivantAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
  2. Blauvelt v. Village of NyackNew York Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Curran v. MatsonNew York Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Bellinger v. Town of SalisburyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
  5. Fidel v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API