Judgment affirmed, with costs.
It was proper for the trial court to exclude testimony regarding a prior accident where there was an insufficient foundation laid setting forth the similarity between the two occurrences. To admit that testimony would have permitted the jury to speculate as to how the subject accident took place. Such speculation, of course, cannot be countenanced (see Flansburg v Town of Elbridge, 205 N.Y. 423;
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.