Hegeman v. Hegeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hegeman v. Hegeman

257 A.D. 852, 12 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8165

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

DecidedMay 23, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 852 (Hegeman v. Hegeman) 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

Hegeman v. Hegeman, 257 A.D. 852, 12 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff was a passenger in a taxicab and was injured when the taxicab w.as struck by a truck. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries. The persons sued are the owner of the taxicab, the driver of the taxicab, and the owner of the truck. The driver of the taxicab is the plaintiff’s husband, and the owner thereof is the plaintiff's son, who appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In the interests of substantial justice there should be a new trial because of the reference in the testimony to an insurance company representative and the omission of the trial justice to.charge, as requested, that the defendants Hegeman were under no duty to produce the defaulting codefendant as a witness. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff was a passenger in a taxicab and was injured when the taxicab w.as struck by a truck. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries. The persons sued are the owner of the taxicab, the driver of the taxicab, and the owner of the truck. The driver of the taxicab is the plaintiff’s husband, and the owner thereof is the plaintiff's son, who appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In the interests of substantial justice there should be a new trial because of the reference in the testimony to an insurance company representative and the omission of the trial justice to.charge, as requested, that the defendants Hegeman were under no duty to produce the defaulting codefendant as a witness. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 852, 12 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hegeman-v-hegeman-nyappdiv-1939.