Fein v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Fein v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York

111 N.E.2d 732, 305 N.Y. 611, 1953 N.Y. LEXIS 1186

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 111 N.E.2d 732 (Fein v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York) 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

Fein v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York, 111 N.E.2d 732, 305 N.Y. 611, 1953 N.Y. LEXIS 1186 (N.Y. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

*613 Per Curiam.

In submitting the case to the jury, the trial court charged that it might return a verdict in favor of plaintiffs if it found that defendant failed either (1) to furnish adequate supervision, or (2) to provide a mat underneath the chinning bar. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff; the court set it aside and dismissed the complaint and the Appellate Division affirmed that disposition.

Although the court was correct in its final decision that the case should not have been submitted to the jury on the first ground, it erred in dismissing the complaint since there was evidence to support the verdict on the second ground. Accordingly, the judgments may not stand. Since, however, no one can know or say on which ground the jury arrived at its verdict, there must be a new trial. (See Clark v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 304 N. Y. 488, 490; Phillipson v. Ninno, 233 N. Y. 223, 226.)

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Loughran, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

*613 Per Curiam.

In submitting the case to the jury, the trial court charged that it might return a verdict in favor of plaintiffs if it found that defendant failed either (1) to furnish adequate supervision, or (2) to provide a mat underneath the chinning bar. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff; the court set it aside and dismissed the complaint and the Appellate Division affirmed that disposition.

Although the court was correct in its final decision that the case should not have been submitted to the jury on the first ground, it erred in dismissing the complaint since there was evidence to support the verdict on the second ground. Accordingly, the judgments may not stand. Since, however, no one can know or say on which ground the jury arrived at its verdict, there must be a new trial. (See Clark v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 304 N. Y. 488, 490; Phillipson v. Ninno, 233 N. Y. 223, 226.)

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Loughran, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.E.2d 732, 305 N.Y. 611, 1953 N.Y. LEXIS 1186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fein-v-bd-of-educ-of-the-city-of-new-york-ny-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack