Domino v. Mercurio

New York Court of Appeals

Domino v. Mercurio

193 N.E.2d 893, 13 N.Y.2d 922

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 N.E.2d 893 (Domino v. Mercurio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Domino v. Mercurio, 193 N.E.2d 893, 13 N.Y.2d 922 (N.Y. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. The existence of issues of fact with respect to negligence was conceded by the failure of defendants to move to dismiss at the conclusion of the case. The Appellate Division, in the exercise of its power to reverse in the interests of justice, examined the issue of whether defendant Board of Education was liable in any event. This court, however, cannot reach that issue since no exception was taken to the trial court’s submission of that issue to the jury.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fold, Van Voorhis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. The existence of issues of fact with respect to negligence was conceded by the failure of defendants to move to dismiss at the conclusion of the case. The Appellate Division, in the exercise of its power to reverse in the interests of justice, examined the issue of whether defendant Board of Education was liable in any event. This court, however, cannot reach that issue since no exception was taken to the trial court’s submission of that issue to the jury.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fold, Van Voorhis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 N.E.2d 893, 13 N.Y.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domino-v-mercurio-ny-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack