Comerford v. Greater New York Councils

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Comerford v. Greater New York Councils

10 A.D.2d 683, 200 N.Y.S.2d 90

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 683 (Comerford v. Greater New York Councils) 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

Comerford v. Greater New York Councils, 10 A.D.2d 683, 200 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. The evidence fails to establish how the fire was caused or that the fire was caused by defendant’s negligence. It may be that upon proper proof the plaintiff will be able to establish that the available fire fighting equipment was not in proper order; that the defendant was under a duty to provide adequate fire fighting equipment and to acquaint the campers with the appropriate procedures in combatting emergency fires. Since the ease must be retried, it is appropriate to note that we consider the charge inadequate in that it did not advise the jury of the duties it was claimed the defendant had violated; further, we believe the verdict to be excessive. In passing, it is [684]*684observed that there was no explanation for the failure by either side to produce the tentmate, Fay, a witness, it would seem, who could provide significant information as to what happened. Concur — Breitel, J. P., M. M. Frank, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. The evidence fails to establish how the fire was caused or that the fire was caused by defendant’s negligence. It may be that upon proper proof the plaintiff will be able to establish that the available fire fighting equipment was not in proper order; that the defendant was under a duty to provide adequate fire fighting equipment and to acquaint the campers with the appropriate procedures in combatting emergency fires. Since the ease must be retried, it is appropriate to note that we consider the charge inadequate in that it did not advise the jury of the duties it was claimed the defendant had violated; further, we believe the verdict to be excessive. In passing, it is [684]*684observed that there was no explanation for the failure by either side to produce the tentmate, Fay, a witness, it would seem, who could provide significant information as to what happened. Concur — Breitel, J. P., M. M. Frank, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 683, 200 N.Y.S.2d 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comerford-v-greater-new-york-councils-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack