Goldfinger v. Plancer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldfinger v. Plancer

122 N.Y.S. 1129

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 122 N.Y.S. 1129 (Goldfinger v. Plancer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldfinger v. Plancer, 122 N.Y.S. 1129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SEARURY, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries which she sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendant. An examination of this record shows that the plaintiff proved that the injuries she sustained were caused by the negligence of the landlord and her own freedom from contributory negligence. The question involved was purely one of fact, and the verdict of the jury is abundantly sustained by the evidence. The only exception taken by the defendant was taken to the denial of his motion to dismiss the complaint. The ruling to which this exception was taken was clearly correct. The injuries which the plaintiff sustained were of a serious character, and the amount awarded her by the verdict of the jury was reasonable. We can find no justification for setting aside the verdict of the jury in this case. The order is reversed, with costs, and the verdict of the jury is reinstated. All concur.

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

SEARURY, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries which she sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendant. An examination of this record shows that the plaintiff proved that the injuries she sustained were caused by the negligence of the landlord and her own freedom from contributory negligence. The question involved was purely one of fact, and the verdict of the jury is abundantly sustained by the evidence. The only exception taken by the defendant was taken to the denial of his motion to dismiss the complaint. The ruling to which this exception was taken was clearly correct. The injuries which the plaintiff sustained were of a serious character, and the amount awarded her by the verdict of the jury was reasonable. We can find no justification for setting aside the verdict of the jury in this case. The order is reversed, with costs, and the verdict of the jury is reinstated. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 N.Y.S. 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldfinger-v-plancer-nyappterm-1910.