Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

JOSEPH BARBAGALLO, Respondent-Appellant, v. AMERICANA CORP., Respondent, and NORMAN THIERER, Appellant.

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; Richardson, 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 in form and, therefore, was properly denied ( Seligson, Morris Neuburger v. Fairbanks Whitney Corp., 22 A.D.2d 625, 629-631).

Judges BURKE, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON concur in memorandum; Chief Judge FULD and Judge SCILEPPI dissent in part and vote to affirm as to both defendants on the opinion at the Appellate Division.

Order modified to the extent of reversing the judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Thierer and directing a new trial, with costs to abide the event, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to defendant Americana Corp., in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BARBAGALLO v. AMERICANA CORP
(Nov 26, 1969)