Cibiniak v. Franklin Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cibiniak v. Franklin Properties, Inc.

273 A.D. 947, 78 N.Y.S.2d 53

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

DecidedApril 12, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 947 (Cibiniak v. Franklin Properties, Inc.) 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

Cibiniak v. Franklin Properties, Inc., 273 A.D. 947, 78 N.Y.S.2d 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriam.

The complaint appears to have been dismissed at the end of

the plaintiffs’ ease solely on the testimony of one of plaintiffs’ witnesses who testified that he had not observed any defect in the ceiling between the time it was last repaired and the time of the accident. Any conflict in evidence that might have resulted by that testimony was a matter for the jury to resolve. (Ochs v. Wood, 221 N. Y. 335.) We find upon an examination of the record that sufficient evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case and that the motion to dismiss the complaint should not have t een granted.

Since a new trial is to be had it is well to point out that the trial court should not have permitted the defendant’s counsel to question one of the plaintiffs as to the workmen’s compensation payments she had received. (Regan v. Frontier Elevator & Mill Co., 211 App. Div. 164.)

The judgment appealed from should therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a neiv trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

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

Per Guriam.

The complaint appears to have been dismissed at the end of

the plaintiffs’ ease solely on the testimony of one of plaintiffs’ witnesses who testified that he had not observed any defect in the ceiling between the time it was last repaired and the time of the accident. Any conflict in evidence that might have resulted by that testimony was a matter for the jury to resolve. (Ochs v. Wood, 221 N. Y. 335.) We find upon an examination of the record that sufficient evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case and that the motion to dismiss the complaint should not have t een granted.

Since a new trial is to be had it is well to point out that the trial court should not have permitted the defendant’s counsel to question one of the plaintiffs as to the workmen’s compensation payments she had received. (Regan v. Frontier Elevator & Mill Co., 211 App. Div. 164.)

The judgment appealed from should therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a neiv trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 947, 78 N.Y.S.2d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cibiniak-v-franklin-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack