Fierst v. Meseck Steamboat Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fierst v. Meseck Steamboat Co.

11 A.D.2d 980, 205 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7907

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 980 (Fierst v. Meseck Steamboat Co.) 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

Fierst v. Meseck Steamboat Co., 11 A.D.2d 980, 205 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, entered June 9,1959, denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and vacate the judgment, and order entered August 25, 1959, denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the aforesaid order, unanimously affirmed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. Upon the unsatisfactory affidavits submitted by plaintiff in support of his motion for a new trial, which were strongly contraverted by the affidavits submitted by defendant, Special Term very properly ordered a hearing. Plaintiff was unable to produce his affiants, although afforded an adjournment and ample opportunity to do so. In making its original decision, Special Term stated it had relied upon the statements procured by the District Attorney, but made no mention of reliance upon the so-called report of the Assistant District Attorney. Wholly apart from any consideration of the District Attorney’s statements, however, the denial of the relief sought was warranted, since plaintiff failed to make a showing sufficient to justify the radical relief of setting aside the jury’s verdict. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Eager, JJ.

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

— Order, entered June 9,1959, denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and vacate the judgment, and order entered August 25, 1959, denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the aforesaid order, unanimously affirmed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. Upon the unsatisfactory affidavits submitted by plaintiff in support of his motion for a new trial, which were strongly contraverted by the affidavits submitted by defendant, Special Term very properly ordered a hearing. Plaintiff was unable to produce his affiants, although afforded an adjournment and ample opportunity to do so. In making its original decision, Special Term stated it had relied upon the statements procured by the District Attorney, but made no mention of reliance upon the so-called report of the Assistant District Attorney. Wholly apart from any consideration of the District Attorney’s statements, however, the denial of the relief sought was warranted, since plaintiff failed to make a showing sufficient to justify the radical relief of setting aside the jury’s verdict. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 980, 205 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fierst-v-meseck-steamboat-co-nyappdiv-1960.