While plaintiff's attorney's remarks on summation seeking to fashion a conspiracy to cover up the facts surrounding plaintiff's fall were deplorable, they did not warrant a mistrial and the trial court's denial of such motion was a proper exercise of discretion. Plaintiff's case was very strong, and we are satisfied that the net effect of counsel's improper, but largely isolated, conspiracy allusion was minimal (compare Melendez v New York City Tr. Auth.,
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.
CALZADO v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
304 A.D.2d 385 (2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 303
JEANETTE CALZADO, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided April 10, 2003.
Decided April 10, 2003.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
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.
