Holtz v. Aldridge
Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs sole contention on appeal is that various remarks by defense counsel in summation were so unfair and prejudicial as to require a new trial. Plaintiff failed to move for a mistrial until after the jury rendered its verdict, and thus the motion was untimely (see, Taylor v Dayton Suregrip & Shore Co., 64 AD2d 809, 810). Although the remarks by defense counsel were improper, plaintiffs objections to those remarks were sustained
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.