STRELZIN v. SABBETH


17 Misc.2d 865 (1959)

Harvey L. Strelzin, Respondent, v. Herbert H. Sabbeth, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

May 7, 1959.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Bijur & Herts (Harry Bijur of counsel), for appellant.

Katz & Leidman (Edwin N. Weidman and Harvey L. Strelzin of counsel), for respondent.

Concur — STEUER, J. P., and HECHT, J.; HOFSTADTER, J., dissents and votes to affirm.


Per Curiam.

The trial court was unduly deferential to plaintiff's expert and allowed him to take liberties which put defendant at a disadvantage. This was coupled with an instruction that he was a disinterested witness whereas under the peculiar circumstances his interest should have been left to the jury. Individually these errors might have been overlooked as insufficient to affect the result but considered together they deprived defendant of a fair trial...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases