Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co.

111 A.D.2d 366, 489 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51463

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

DecidedMay 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by43 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 366 (Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co.) 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

Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 A.D.2d 366, 489 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In two actions to recover damages for fraud in connection with the purchase óf real property, defendants appeal from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), both entered April 29, 1983, each of which granted judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,500, the amount of his deposit, upon a directed verdict.

Judgments reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, action No. 2 dismissed, and new trial granted as to action No. 1.

Plaintiff presented no evidence at trial in action No. 2 that defendant Gitzler acted other than as the agent of the corporate defendant, and Gitzler’s testimony that he acted only in his representative capacity was uncontradicted. Consequently, the case against Gitzler individually should have been dismissed.

Further, the judgment in action No. 1 against the corporate defendant must be reversed as the trial court erred in directing a verdict in this case. In considering a motion for a directed verdict, a court is not to engage in a weighing of the evidence, but instead must determine that by no rational process could the trier of facts find for the nonmoving party (see, e.g., Lipsius v White, 91 AD2d 271, 276-277; Blum v Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 NY 241, 245). The court must also take the view of the evidence that is most favorable to the nonmoving party (see, Holmberg v Donohue, 24 AD2d 569, 570), and the motion should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question (see, e.g., Cox v Don’s Welding Serv., 58 AD2d 1013; Le May v Frankel, 80 AD2d 665). Here, the parties differed as to when and under what circumstances the alleged misrepresentations about the building of a Merit station were made, raising clear issues of fact and credibility to be resolved by the jury. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In two actions to recover damages for fraud in connection with the purchase óf real property, defendants appeal from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), both entered April 29, 1983, each of which granted judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,500, the amount of his deposit, upon a directed verdict.

Judgments reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, action No. 2 dismissed, and new trial granted as to action No. 1.

Plaintiff presented no evidence at trial in action No. 2 that defendant Gitzler acted other than as the agent of the corporate defendant, and Gitzler’s testimony that he acted only in his representative capacity was uncontradicted. Consequently, the case against Gitzler individually should have been dismissed.

Further, the judgment in action No. 1 against the corporate defendant must be reversed as the trial court erred in directing a verdict in this case. In considering a motion for a directed verdict, a court is not to engage in a weighing of the evidence, but instead must determine that by no rational process could the trier of facts find for the nonmoving party (see, e.g., Lipsius v White, 91 AD2d 271, 276-277; Blum v Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 NY 241, 245). The court must also take the view of the evidence that is most favorable to the nonmoving party (see, Holmberg v Donohue, 24 AD2d 569, 570), and the motion should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question (see, e.g., Cox v Don’s Welding Serv., 58 AD2d 1013; Le May v Frankel, 80 AD2d 665). Here, the parties differed as to when and under what circumstances the alleged misrepresentations about the building of a Merit station were made, raising clear issues of fact and credibility to be resolved by the jury. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 366, 489 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolitsky-v-bay-isle-oil-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack