Giglio v. Haber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giglio v. Haber

19 A.D.2d 793, 243 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 793 (Giglio v. Haber) 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

Giglio v. Haber, 19 A.D.2d 793, 243 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 18, 1963 after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s evidence for failure of proof. Judgment modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion by adding a provision to the effect that the dismissal of the complaint against all the defendants is without prejudice. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact below are affirmed. The record discloses that, at the end of plaintiff’s case, the Trial Justice, on the ground that a prima facie case had not been proved, dismissed the complaint xoith prejudice. While the judgment does not state that the dismissal is with prejudice, it must be so construed here (Civ. Prac. Act, § 482; CPLR, rule 5013). In our opinion it was error to make the dismissal with prejudice, thus precluding the prosecution of a new action. Under all the circumstances disclosed in the record, it appears that proof is available to plaintiff which will readily enable him to establish a prima facie case. The complaint therefore should have been dismissed, without prejudice. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 18, 1963 after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s evidence for failure of proof. Judgment modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion by adding a provision to the effect that the dismissal of the complaint against all the defendants is without prejudice. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact below are affirmed. The record discloses that, at the end of plaintiff’s case, the Trial Justice, on the ground that a prima facie case had not been proved, dismissed the complaint xoith prejudice. While the judgment does not state that the dismissal is with prejudice, it must be so construed here (Civ. Prac. Act, § 482; CPLR, rule 5013). In our opinion it was error to make the dismissal with prejudice, thus precluding the prosecution of a new action. Under all the circumstances disclosed in the record, it appears that proof is available to plaintiff which will readily enable him to establish a prima facie case. The complaint therefore should have been dismissed, without prejudice. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 793, 243 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giglio-v-haber-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack