Narrative Opinion Summary
Defendant appeals a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, awarded to the plaintiff for $72,000 following a jury verdict. The appellate court reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, with costs to follow the outcome. The court identified two key errors: first, the denial of the defendant’s request to record the plaintiff’s closing statement, which was deemed prejudicial due to the attorney's comments; second, the dismissal of the defendant's affirmative defense of fraud, which presented a factual question appropriate for jury consideration. Judges Hopkins, J.P., Gibbons, O’Connor, and Thompson concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of Affirmative Defense of Fraudsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court held that the dismissal of the defendant's affirmative defense of fraud was incorrect, as it raised a factual question suitable for jury deliberation.
Reasoning: The dismissal of the defendant's affirmative defense of fraud, which presented a factual question appropriate for jury consideration.
Right to Record Closing Statementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that denying the defendant's request to record the plaintiff's closing statement was prejudicial, warranting a reversal of judgment.
Reasoning: The court identified two key errors: first, the denial of the defendant’s request to record the plaintiff’s closing statement, which was deemed prejudicial due to the attorney's comments.