Ferranti v. Vroman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferranti v. Vroman

259 A.D. 782, 18 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6619

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 782 (Ferranti v. Vroman) 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

Ferranti v. Vroman, 259 A.D. 782, 18 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: Our examination of the record convinces us that the evidence presents questions of fact as to the negligence of the defendant Joyce and as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. If it be assumed that the proofs were sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the question of the defendant Vroman’s negligence and whether such negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the verdict of the jury cannot be said to be against the weight of evidence. The record fails to disclose any sufficient reason for setting aside the jury’s verdict. (Barrett v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628, 632; Dashnau v. City of Oswego, 204 App. Div. 189,191-192; Shepard v. Peck, 254 id. 421, 423; Mieuli v. New York & Queens County R. Co., 136 id. 373, 375; Solkey v. Beyer, 238 id. 809; Scheuerman v. Knapp Coal Co., Inc., Id. 874; Meyers v. Hines, 199 id. 594, 596.) All concur. (The order grants a motion to set aside the verdict of a jury in favor of defendants and grants a new trial, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: Our examination of the record convinces us that the evidence presents questions of fact as to the negligence of the defendant Joyce and as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. If it be assumed that the proofs were sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the question of the defendant Vroman’s negligence and whether such negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the verdict of the jury cannot be said to be against the weight of evidence. The record fails to disclose any sufficient reason for setting aside the jury’s verdict. (Barrett v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628, 632; Dashnau v. City of Oswego, 204 App. Div. 189,191-192; Shepard v. Peck, 254 id. 421, 423; Mieuli v. New York & Queens County R. Co., 136 id. 373, 375; Solkey v. Beyer, 238 id. 809; Scheuerman v. Knapp Coal Co., Inc., Id. 874; Meyers v. Hines, 199 id. 594, 596.) All concur. (The order grants a motion to set aside the verdict of a jury in favor of defendants and grants a new trial, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 782, 18 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferranti-v-vroman-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack