Coffey v. New York City Ry. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coffey v. New York City Ry. Co.

102 N.Y.S. 1132

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 102 N.Y.S. 1132 (Coffey v. New York City Ry. Co.) 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

Coffey v. New York City Ry. Co., 102 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HOUGHTON, J.

The order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, from which the plaintiff appeals, recites that the motion was made upon the ground, among others, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. In a memorandum opinion the learned trial court stated views respecting the case in which we do not concur. It is the order, however, which governs our consideration of the appeal and not the opinion. Treating the motion as made upon the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, as we must, the facts disclosed by the record are such that we do not feel justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court in making such an order. The order granting [1133]*1133a new trial is therefore affirmed, with costs. LU concur; Ingraham, C. J., in result.

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

HOUGHTON, J.

The order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, from which the plaintiff appeals, recites that the motion was made upon the ground, among others, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. In a memorandum opinion the learned trial court stated views respecting the case in which we do not concur. It is the order, however, which governs our consideration of the appeal and not the opinion. Treating the motion as made upon the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, as we must, the facts disclosed by the record are such that we do not feel justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court in making such an order. The order granting [1133]*1133a new trial is therefore affirmed, with costs. LU concur; Ingraham, C. J., in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 N.Y.S. 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffey-v-new-york-city-ry-co-nyappdiv-1907.