Hey v. Huss

16 Misc. 2d 672, 189 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2220
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 8, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 Misc. 2d 672 (Hey v. Huss) 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
Hey v. Huss, 16 Misc. 2d 672, 189 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While the court in the exercise of discretion might set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, it could not direct a verdict but should have ordered a new trial. (Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N. Y. 241, 245; Imbrey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 286 N. Y. 434.) Judgment upon the facts must be the judgment of the jury and not that of another tribunal. (Loewinthal v. Le Vine, 299 N. Y. 372, 377.)

The order of the City Court, Queens County, setting aside the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff and dismissing the complaint on the merits, and ordering a new trial of the defendant’s counterclaim, should be modified on the law and facts by directing that there be a new trial of the entire case, and [673]*673as so modified, affirmed with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Pette and Brown, JJ., concur. Hart, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Order modified, etc.

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

Related

Farber v. Jewish Community Center of Flatbush
32 Misc. 2d 124 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Misc. 2d 672, 189 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hey-v-huss-nyappterm-1958.