Court Opinion

ID: 5736280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:34:11.872849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:58.539031
License: Public Domain

As disclosed by the record, the trial of this closely contested action was conducted in an atmosphere of bickering and exchanges of bitterness and prejudicial statements between counsel which prevented a dispassionate consideration of the case by the jury (cf. Zaulich y. Thompkms Sq. Co., 10 A D 2d 492, 497-498; Cohon & Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corp., 10 A D 2d 667; Browne v. Adams, 12 A D 2d 661; Kohlman v. City of New York, 8 A D 2d 598). In addition, the trial court’s charge to the jury, as a whole, was highly prejudicial to the plaintiff. In the interests of justice a new trial is required. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.