Colon v. Automatic Retailers Ass'n Service, Inc.
Victoria Colon v. Automatic Retailers Association Service, Inc., Also Known as Ara Service, Inc., and British Overseas Airways Corporation, Also Known as BOAC, and Third-Party Collins M. Ward, Third-Party
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The introduction into evidence of photographs of the accident site showing subsequent alterations coupled with plaintiff’s arguments that the lack of such alterations as of the date of the accident constituted negligence was prejudicial error. (See Cahill v. Kleinberg, 233 N. Y. 255 ; Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Int., 60 Misc 2d 840 .)
The award of judgment to British Overseas Airways Corporation on its cross claim for indemnification was improper in view of the lack of proof that the obligation for which indemnification was sought had been paid. (See Hevro Realty Co. v. Olaya, N. Y. L. J., Aug. 6, 1971, p. 2, col. 1 [App. Term, 1st Dept.]; 379 Madison Ave., Inc. v. Stuyvesant Co., 242 App. Div. 567 , affd. 268 N. Y. 576 .)
Judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant-appellant should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. Judgment in favor of defendant British Overseas Airways Corporation on its cross claim against defendant-appellant reversed and cross claim ¡should be dismissed as premature without prejudice, with $30 costs to appellant.
Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Lupiano and Quinn, JJ.
Judgment reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.