Hynes v. Damico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hynes v. Damico

54 A.D.2d 922, 388 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14769

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 922 (Hynes v. Damico) 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

Hynes v. Damico, 54 A.D.2d 922, 388 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 19, 1975, which, after a jury trial, is in favor of defendant and against him. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, wdth costs to abide the event. No contention has been raised with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court erred in charging the jury on the possibility of an emergency situation being present. There were no facts presented at the trial upon which the jury could find that defendant was responding to an emergency situation (see Demme v Elmer J. Fogerty, Inc., 47 AD2d 851). Margett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Latham, 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, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 19, 1975, which, after a jury trial, is in favor of defendant and against him. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, wdth costs to abide the event. No contention has been raised with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court erred in charging the jury on the possibility of an emergency situation being present. There were no facts presented at the trial upon which the jury could find that defendant was responding to an emergency situation (see Demme v Elmer J. Fogerty, Inc., 47 AD2d 851). Margett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Latham, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 922, 388 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hynes-v-damico-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack