Carroll v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carroll v. Shaw

27 A.D.2d 848, 280 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4591

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 848 (Carroll v. Shaw) 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

Carroll v. Shaw, 27 A.D.2d 848, 280 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

— Amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 16, 1966, reversed insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff against defendants Shaw and O’Sullivan, on the law, without costs, and new trial and severance directed as between plaintiff and said defendants; and judgment otherwise affirmed, without costs. This court has considered the question of fact and would not grant a new trial upon those questions. It is our opinion that it was error for the trial court to charge the jury that violation of the statute and ordinance relating to fireworks (Penal Law, § 1894-a, subd. 2; Administrative Code of the City of New York, § C19-44.0) may be evidence of negligence against defendants Shaw and O’Sullivan. There is no evidence in the record from which a violation of the statute or ordinance by said defendants can be found. The verdict being a general one, we have no way of knowing the basis for the jury’s determination of liability. It is possible that it was based upon the erroneous charge. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— Amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 16, 1966, reversed insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff against defendants Shaw and O’Sullivan, on the law, without costs, and new trial and severance directed as between plaintiff and said defendants; and judgment otherwise affirmed, without costs. This court has considered the question of fact and would not grant a new trial upon those questions. It is our opinion that it was error for the trial court to charge the jury that violation of the statute and ordinance relating to fireworks (Penal Law, § 1894-a, subd. 2; Administrative Code of the City of New York, § C19-44.0) may be evidence of negligence against defendants Shaw and O’Sullivan. There is no evidence in the record from which a violation of the statute or ordinance by said defendants can be found. The verdict being a general one, we have no way of knowing the basis for the jury’s determination of liability. It is possible that it was based upon the erroneous charge. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 848, 280 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-shaw-nyappdiv-1967.