Hurwitz v. Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hurwitz v. Cramer

29 A.D.2d 563, 286 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 563 (Hurwitz v. Cramer) 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

Hurwitz v. Cramer, 29 A.D.2d 563, 286 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 1, 1967, in favor of defendant Reines as administratrix of the two estates, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the end of plaintiffs’ case (including an offer of proof) upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted as between plaintiffs and defendant as administratrix of the two estates, with costs to .plaintiffs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered on this appeal. In our opinion, it was error for the trial court to have dismissed the complaint. Considering the evidence adduced in the aspect most favorable to plaintiffs and giving them the benefit of every favorable inference which can be reasonably drawn therefrom (African Metals Gorp. v. Bullowa, 288 N. Y. 78; Dillon v. Bockaway Beach Hosp., 284 N. Y. 176), we conclude that whether respondent’s intestate Paul Peisach was confronted with an "emergency which excused his actions was an issue of fact to be submitted to the jury. Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur; Christ, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 1, 1967, in favor of defendant Reines as administratrix of the two estates, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the end of plaintiffs’ case (including an offer of proof) upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted as between plaintiffs and defendant as administratrix of the two estates, with costs to .plaintiffs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered on this appeal. In our opinion, it was error for the trial court to have dismissed the complaint. Considering the evidence adduced in the aspect most favorable to plaintiffs and giving them the benefit of every favorable inference which can be reasonably drawn therefrom (African Metals Gorp. v. Bullowa, 288 N. Y. 78; Dillon v. Bockaway Beach Hosp., 284 N. Y. 176), we conclude that whether respondent’s intestate Paul Peisach was confronted with an "emergency which excused his actions was an issue of fact to be submitted to the jury. Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur; Christ, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 563, 286 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurwitz-v-cramer-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack