Bignami v. Caristo Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bignami v. Caristo Construction Corp.

37 A.D.2d 851, 326 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 851 (Bignami v. Caristo Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bignami v. Caristo Construction Corp., 37 A.D.2d 851, 326 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 8, 1971, in favor of defendants Caristo Construction Corp. and Alpine Sheet Metal & Ventilating Co., Inc., upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on the opening statement of plaintiff’s counsel to the jury. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Upon the record before us, which includes the pleadings, as well as the opening statement, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to nonsuit plaintiff on the opening of counsel. The facts as alleged and as presented by counsel are not such as to preclude any possibility of recovery (Rivera v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 11 A D 2d 7). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 8, 1971, in favor of defendants Caristo Construction Corp. and Alpine Sheet Metal & Ventilating Co., Inc., upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on the opening statement of plaintiff’s counsel to the jury. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Upon the record before us, which includes the pleadings, as well as the opening statement, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to nonsuit plaintiff on the opening of counsel. The facts as alleged and as presented by counsel are not such as to preclude any possibility of recovery (Rivera v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 11 A D 2d 7). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 851, 326 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bignami-v-caristo-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack