Faichney v. Ketelsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faichney v. Ketelsen

250 A.D. 868, 295 N.Y.S. 246, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9487

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

DecidedApril 26, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 A.D. 868 (Faichney v. Ketelsen) 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

Faichney v. Ketelsen, 250 A.D. 868, 295 N.Y.S. 246, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for injuries to the infant plaintiff as a result of having been struck by the automobile of one of the defendants, and by his father to recover for loss of services. Judgment and order denying motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Appeal from order denying motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence dismissed. It was error to charge that crossing a street at a place other [869]*869than a street intersection is of itself evidence of negligerice. Although no exception was taken, the interests of substantial justice require that there should be a new trial. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages for injuries to the infant plaintiff as a result of having been struck by the automobile of one of the defendants, and by his father to recover for loss of services. Judgment and order denying motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Appeal from order denying motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence dismissed. It was error to charge that crossing a street at a place other [869]*869than a street intersection is of itself evidence of negligerice. Although no exception was taken, the interests of substantial justice require that there should be a new trial. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 868, 295 N.Y.S. 246, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faichney-v-ketelsen-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack