Dore v. Wyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dore v. Wyer

1 A.D.2d 973, 150 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5727

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

DecidedApril 23, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 973 (Dore v. Wyer) 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

Dore v. Wyer, 1 A.D.2d 973, 150 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

One of respondent’s trains collided, at a grade crossing, with a motor vehicle, owned by the Wagner Baking Corporation and operated by the intestate, causing injuries which [974]*974resulted in his death. An action to recover damages for his wrongful death was consolidated, by order of the court, with an action brought by the owner of the motor vehicle to recover damages for injuries to it. The jury rendered a sealed verdict in favor of respondent against the administratrix and the owner of the motor vehicle. When the court announced the verdict, counsel for the administratrix requested that the jury be polled. Although the jury was present, the court denied the request, stating that ten jurors had signed the verdict, and that polling was therefore unnecessary. The notice of appeal states that both the administratrix and the owner appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict, but there is a statement in the record that the owner has abandoned its appeal. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of respondent against the administratrix, reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The administratrix had an absolute right to have the jury polled, and the denial of that right was serious error. (Labor v. Koplin, 4 N. Y. 547; Warner v. New York Central R. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 437; Porret v. City of New York, 252 N. Y. 208; Spielter v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 232 App. Div. 104.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kieinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

One of respondent’s trains collided, at a grade crossing, with a motor vehicle, owned by the Wagner Baking Corporation and operated by the intestate, causing injuries which [974]*974resulted in his death. An action to recover damages for his wrongful death was consolidated, by order of the court, with an action brought by the owner of the motor vehicle to recover damages for injuries to it. The jury rendered a sealed verdict in favor of respondent against the administratrix and the owner of the motor vehicle. When the court announced the verdict, counsel for the administratrix requested that the jury be polled. Although the jury was present, the court denied the request, stating that ten jurors had signed the verdict, and that polling was therefore unnecessary. The notice of appeal states that both the administratrix and the owner appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict, but there is a statement in the record that the owner has abandoned its appeal. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of respondent against the administratrix, reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The administratrix had an absolute right to have the jury polled, and the denial of that right was serious error. (Labor v. Koplin, 4 N. Y. 547; Warner v. New York Central R. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 437; Porret v. City of New York, 252 N. Y. 208; Spielter v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 232 App. Div. 104.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kieinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 973, 150 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dore-v-wyer-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack