Feldstein v. Greater New York Councils

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feldstein v. Greater New York Councils

16 A.D.2d 771, 228 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9541

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

DecidedMay 22, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.2d 771 (Feldstein v. Greater New York Councils) 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

Feldstein v. Greater New York Councils, 16 A.D.2d 771, 228 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to proceed with the trial of a personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and a new trial ordered. The court in its discretion may order a separate trial of one or more issues in a ease prior to any trial of other issues (Civ. Prac. Act, § 443). If the complaint consisted only of the first cause of action, the dismissal would have been a proper exercise of discretion. However, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries as alleged in the second cause of action, which complained of a failure to provide prompt medical treatment, have an important bearing on the question of liability. In our view plaintiff might well be prejudiced by a severance (cf. Berman v. H. J. Enterprises, 13 A D 2d 199). Additionally, some of the court feel that the remarks of the Trial Justice after the jury had been sworn could have been so misnnderstool by the jury as to have unfairly misled them to plaintiff’s detriment. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to proceed with the trial of a personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and a new trial ordered. The court in its discretion may order a separate trial of one or more issues in a ease prior to any trial of other issues (Civ. Prac. Act, § 443). If the complaint consisted only of the first cause of action, the dismissal would have been a proper exercise of discretion. However, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries as alleged in the second cause of action, which complained of a failure to provide prompt medical treatment, have an important bearing on the question of liability. In our view plaintiff might well be prejudiced by a severance (cf. Berman v. H. J. Enterprises, 13 A D 2d 199). Additionally, some of the court feel that the remarks of the Trial Justice after the jury had been sworn could have been so misnnderstool by the jury as to have unfairly misled them to plaintiff’s detriment. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 771, 228 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feldstein-v-greater-new-york-councils-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack