Chimenti v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chimenti v. Hertz Corp.

23 A.D.2d 495, 256 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5073

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 11, 1965·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 10, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict of $25,000 in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. We find that the gravamen of the complaint, as particularized by the bill of particulars, was common-law negligence and not a violation of section 167 of the Labor Law. In view of the pleadings and the proof, the injection of that statute into the ease by plaintiff, after he had rested, constituted surprise to the defendants. Under the circumstances, the denial of defendants’ application to reopen their case for the purpose of presenting evidence as to the nonapplicability of said statute (Labor Law, § 167) constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. In our opinion a new trial is required in the interests of justice. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, 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 injury, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 10, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict of $25,000 in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. We find that the gravamen of the complaint, as particularized by the bill of particulars, was common-law negligence and not a violation of section 167 of the Labor Law. In view of the pleadings and the proof, the injection of that statute into the ease by plaintiff, after he had rested, constituted surprise to the defendants. Under the circumstances, the denial of defendants’ application to reopen their case for the purpose of presenting evidence as to the nonapplicability of said statute (Labor Law, § 167) constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. In our opinion a new trial is required in the interests of justice. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Chimenti v. Hertz Corp., 23 A.D.2d 495, 256 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

23 A.D.2d 495 (Chimenti v. Hertz Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related