Central Coal Co. v. Louray Realty Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Coal Co. v. Louray Realty Corp.

156 Misc. 206, 281 N.Y.S. 438, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1315

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided July 12, 1935·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Although the Appellate Division has decided that upon reserving decision of a motion to dismiss a complaint until the case is submitted to and passed upon by the jury the court may not direct a verdict in the absence of the jury (Matter of Continental [207]*207Guaranty Corp. v. Craig, 212 App. Div. 236; Gabler v. Goldman Co., 215 id. 333), under the recent decision of our Appellate Division, construing the relevant provisions of the Civil Practice Act (Kagan v. Avallone, 243 App. Div. 437), the trial judge had a right to direct judgment for plaintiff after the jury disagreed; and whether plaintiff’s judgment is the result of a “ direction for judgment ” in so many words or the direction of a “ verdict ” is immaterial. It follows that appellant’s contention that the court below had no jurisdiction to make the order appealed from must be overruled.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Frankenthaler and Shientag, JJ., concur; Callahan, J., dissents with memorandum.

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

Per Curiam.

Although the Appellate Division has decided that upon reserving decision of a motion to dismiss a complaint until the case is submitted to and passed upon by the jury the court may not direct a verdict in the absence of the jury (Matter of Continental [207]*207Guaranty Corp. v. Craig, 212 App. Div. 236; Gabler v. Goldman Co., 215 id. 333), under the recent decision of our Appellate Division, construing the relevant provisions of the Civil Practice Act (Kagan v. Avallone, 243 App. Div. 437), the trial judge had a right to direct judgment for plaintiff after the jury disagreed; and whether plaintiff’s judgment is the result of a “ direction for judgment ” in so many words or the direction of a “ verdict ” is immaterial. It follows that appellant’s contention that the court below had no jurisdiction to make the order appealed from must be overruled.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Frankenthaler and Shientag, JJ., concur; Callahan, J., dissents with memorandum.

Central Coal Co. v. Louray Realty Corp., 156 Misc. 206, 281 N.Y.S. 438, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

156 Misc. 206 (Central Coal Co. v. Louray Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related