De Lizia v. Beavers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Lizia v. Beavers

42 A.D.2d 843, 346 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3615

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

DecidedAugust 6, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 843 (De Lizia v. Beavers) 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

De Lizia v. Beavers, 42 A.D.2d 843, 346 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 1, 1972, as (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in defendant’s favor on the issue of liability and (2) ordered a new trial. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to abide the event of the new trial. In our opinion, Trial Term properly exercised its discretion, since the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829). The record clearly established defendant’s negligence and the jury, by no rational process, could have found plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence (Stevens v. Clark, 2 A D 2d 791; Hamby v. Bonventre, 36 A D 2d 648; Coppola v. Bisedorph, 37 A D 2d 680). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ,, concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 1, 1972, as (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in defendant’s favor on the issue of liability and (2) ordered a new trial. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to abide the event of the new trial. In our opinion, Trial Term properly exercised its discretion, since the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829). The record clearly established defendant’s negligence and the jury, by no rational process, could have found plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence (Stevens v. Clark, 2 A D 2d 791; Hamby v. Bonventre, 36 A D 2d 648; Coppola v. Bisedorph, 37 A D 2d 680). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 843, 346 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-lizia-v-beavers-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack