Cuttitta v. Viggiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cuttitta v. Viggiano

54 A.D.2d 969, 388 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14898

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 969 (Cuttitta v. Viggiano) 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

Cuttitta v. Viggiano, 54 A.D.2d 969, 388 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover damages predicated upon breach of contract, negligence and breach of a fiduciary duty, (1) plaintiffs appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 7, 1975, as is in favor of defendant Perelstein and against them upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint as against the said defendant at the close of plaintiffs’ case, at a jury trial, and (2) defendant Lusthaus cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the said judgment as (a) is against him and in favor of plaintiffs, upon the trial court’s direction of a verdict at the close of the entire case, and (b) dismissed his cross claim against defendant Perelstein. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, action severed as between plaintiffs and defendants Lusthaus and Perelstein, and a new trial granted as between those parties on the issues raised in the complaint and cross claims, with costs to abide the event. No fact findings were presented for review. In [970]*970our opinion the direction of a verdict against defendant Lusthaus, and the dismissal of the complaint against defendant Perelstein, were unwarranted on the record before us; there were issues of fact for the jury to determine. A new trial as to both of those defendants is therefore required. Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover damages predicated upon breach of contract, negligence and breach of a fiduciary duty, (1) plaintiffs appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 7, 1975, as is in favor of defendant Perelstein and against them upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint as against the said defendant at the close of plaintiffs’ case, at a jury trial, and (2) defendant Lusthaus cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the said judgment as (a) is against him and in favor of plaintiffs, upon the trial court’s direction of a verdict at the close of the entire case, and (b) dismissed his cross claim against defendant Perelstein. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, action severed as between plaintiffs and defendants Lusthaus and Perelstein, and a new trial granted as between those parties on the issues raised in the complaint and cross claims, with costs to abide the event. No fact findings were presented for review. In [970]*970our opinion the direction of a verdict against defendant Lusthaus, and the dismissal of the complaint against defendant Perelstein, were unwarranted on the record before us; there were issues of fact for the jury to determine. A new trial as to both of those defendants is therefore required. Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 969, 388 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuttitta-v-viggiano-nyappdiv-1976.