Beutenmiller v. West End Tavern, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Beutenmiller v. West End Tavern, Inc.

133 N.E.2d 510, 1 N.Y.2d 652

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 N.E.2d 510 (Beutenmiller v. West End Tavern, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beutenmiller v. West End Tavern, Inc., 133 N.E.2d 510, 1 N.Y.2d 652 (N.Y. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis and Burke, JJ. Froessel, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum in which Conway, Ch. J., concurs: As we read this record, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case on the issue of liability, and before defendant had offered any proof or rested, as a matter of law and without weighing the evidence. Giving the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence (Swensson v. New York, Albany Desp. Co., 309 N. Y. 497; Betzag v. Gulf Oil Corp., 298 N. Y. 358; Faber v. City of New York, 213 N. Y. 411; Kraus v. Birnbaum, 200 N. Y. 130; 6 Carmody-Wait on New York Practice, p. 699), a jury, without more, would be warranted in finding that the facts and circumstances support the inference that defendant’s employees, who admittedly were the only persons-carrying food through the area where the accident occurred, created the condition complained of. In our view, it was error to dismiss the complaint at the time the motion was made. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis and Burke, JJ. Froessel, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum in which Conway, Ch. J., concurs: As we read this record, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case on the issue of liability, and before defendant had offered any proof or rested, as a matter of law and without weighing the evidence. Giving the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence (Swensson v. New York, Albany Desp. Co., 309 N. Y. 497; Betzag v. Gulf Oil Corp., 298 N. Y. 358; Faber v. City of New York, 213 N. Y. 411; Kraus v. Birnbaum, 200 N. Y. 130; 6 Carmody-Wait on New York Practice, p. 699), a jury, without more, would be warranted in finding that the facts and circumstances support the inference that defendant’s employees, who admittedly were the only persons-carrying food through the area where the accident occurred, created the condition complained of. In our view, it was error to dismiss the complaint at the time the motion was made. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.E.2d 510, 1 N.Y.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beutenmiller-v-west-end-tavern-inc-ny-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack