Hroch v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hroch v. Colon

20 A.D.2d 576, 246 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2562

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 576 (Hroch v. Colon) 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

Hroch v. Colon, 20 A.D.2d 576, 246 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injury, and by her father to recover for medical expenses and loss of services, defendants Union News Company and Philip De Noia appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 17, 1963 after trial on the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs, as was against said defendants. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts; action severed as against the nonappealing defendant Colon; and a new trial granted as between plaintiffs and the said defendants, Union News Company and De Noia, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the finding, implicit in the verdict, that appellants’ negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in which the infant plaintiff was injured, was against the weight of the credible evidence. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injury, and by her father to recover for medical expenses and loss of services, defendants Union News Company and Philip De Noia appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 17, 1963 after trial on the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs, as was against said defendants. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts; action severed as against the nonappealing defendant Colon; and a new trial granted as between plaintiffs and the said defendants, Union News Company and De Noia, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the finding, implicit in the verdict, that appellants’ negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in which the infant plaintiff was injured, was against the weight of the credible evidence. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 576, 246 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hroch-v-colon-nyappdiv-1963.