Countryman v. Breen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Countryman v. Breen

249 A.D. 704, 291 N.Y.S. 432, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 704 (Countryman v. Breen) 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

Countryman v. Breen, 249 A.D. 704, 291 N.Y.S. 432, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Edgcomb, J., who dissents and votes for reversal on the law and for granting a new trial, in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote for reversal upon the ground that the court erred in charging the jury that it was difficult to construe the provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law in respect to the right of way at intersections, and that the jury had a right to take into consideration all these rules, and determine how a reasonably prudent man would act under the circumstances. The interpretation of the statute was a question of law, and the jury should not have been permitted to give it such meaning as they thought proper. (The judgment awards damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The order denies a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Edgcomb, J., who dissents and votes for reversal on the law and for granting a new trial, in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote for reversal upon the ground that the court erred in charging the jury that it was difficult to construe the provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law in respect to the right of way at intersections, and that the jury had a right to take into consideration all these rules, and determine how a reasonably prudent man would act under the circumstances. The interpretation of the statute was a question of law, and the jury should not have been permitted to give it such meaning as they thought proper. (The judgment awards damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The order denies a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 704, 291 N.Y.S. 432, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/countryman-v-breen-nyappdiv-1936.