Fitzgerald v. B. Gertz, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald v. B. Gertz, Inc.

30 A.D.2d 809, 293 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3513

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 809 (Fitzgerald v. B. Gertz, Inc.) 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

Fitzgerald v. B. Gertz, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 809, 293 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 26, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the verdict, predicated on a finding of negligence due to an excessive violent jerking motion of an escalator, is against the weight of the evidence. Further, the trial court erred in not permitting defense counsel to question a witness for plaintiffs concerning the effect of the alleged irregular movement on other persons who were on the escalator. Finally, the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness, called in rebuttal, was not supported by sufficient facts in the record upon which liability could be predicated. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 26, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the verdict, predicated on a finding of negligence due to an excessive violent jerking motion of an escalator, is against the weight of the evidence. Further, the trial court erred in not permitting defense counsel to question a witness for plaintiffs concerning the effect of the alleged irregular movement on other persons who were on the escalator. Finally, the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness, called in rebuttal, was not supported by sufficient facts in the record upon which liability could be predicated. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 809, 293 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-b-gertz-inc-nyappdiv-1968.