Curatolo v. Rochester Ice & Cold Storage Utilities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curatolo v. Rochester Ice & Cold Storage Utilities, Inc.

255 A.D. 934, 8 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5893

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 934 (Curatolo v. Rochester Ice & Cold Storage Utilities, 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

Curatolo v. Rochester Ice & Cold Storage Utilities, Inc., 255 A.D. 934, 8 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, unless the plaintiffs shall, within ten days, stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $8,000, as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and, as so modified, is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We-find no error in the exclusion, by the trial court, of the Rochester city ordinance. Failure to obey the ordinance, even if it could be charged to the decedent, was not, in any sense, the proximate cause of the accident. It is also doubtful whether the ordinance refers to the kind of act in which the decedent was engaged. We find, however, that the verdict was excessive, considering decedent’s age and his ability to produce an income. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, unless the plaintiffs shall, within ten days, stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $8,000, as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and, as so modified, is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We-find no error in the exclusion, by the trial court, of the Rochester city ordinance. Failure to obey the ordinance, even if it could be charged to the decedent, was not, in any sense, the proximate cause of the accident. It is also doubtful whether the ordinance refers to the kind of act in which the decedent was engaged. We find, however, that the verdict was excessive, considering decedent’s age and his ability to produce an income. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 934, 8 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curatolo-v-rochester-ice-cold-storage-utilities-inc-nyappdiv-1938.