Cacia v. Starr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cacia v. Starr

46 A.D.2d 769, 362 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 769 (Cacia v. Starr) 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

Cacia v. Starr, 46 A.D.2d 769, 362 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the appeal is from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 4, 1974, in favor of plaintiffs against appellants on the issue of liability, upon a jury verdict. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., dissents and votes to reverse and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, there was such a paucity of, and conflict in, the evidence adduced as to exactly where the áceident occurred, the nature of the roadway at that point and the lane markings and the location of the cars after the impact, as to require a new trial in the interests of justice.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the appeal is from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 4, 1974, in favor of plaintiffs against appellants on the issue of liability, upon a jury verdict. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., dissents and votes to reverse and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, there was such a paucity of, and conflict in, the evidence adduced as to exactly where the áceident occurred, the nature of the roadway at that point and the lane markings and the location of the cars after the impact, as to require a new trial in the interests of justice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 769, 362 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cacia-v-starr-nyappdiv-1974.