Cavaccini v. Farm Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cavaccini v. Farm Products Corp.

258 A.D. 812, 16 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7059

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 812 (Cavaccini v. Farm Products 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

Cavaccini v. Farm Products Corp., 258 A.D. 812, 16 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate as the result of the collision of decedent’s sedan and the corporate defendant’s truck. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Close, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and order and grant a new trial on the ground that the trial court committed substantial error in its rulings at folios 339-340 and 390-391 of the record. In effect the court, in making these rulings, permitted the defendants’ witness to pass judgment on the two most important issues in the case.

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

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate as the result of the collision of decedent’s sedan and the corporate defendant’s truck. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Close, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and order and grant a new trial on the ground that the trial court committed substantial error in its rulings at folios 339-340 and 390-391 of the record. In effect the court, in making these rulings, permitted the defendants’ witness to pass judgment on the two most important issues in the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 812, 16 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavaccini-v-farm-products-corp-nyappdiv-1939.