Immergluck v. Central Crosstown Railroad

City of New York Municipal Court

Immergluck v. Central Crosstown Railroad

34 Misc. 826, 71 N.Y.S. 1138

DecidedMay 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Misc. 826 (Immergluck v. Central Crosstown Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Immergluck v. Central Crosstown Railroad, 34 Misc. 826, 71 N.Y.S. 1138 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Hascall, J.

A careful reading of the testimony forces the conclusion that the verdict is palpably against the weight of evidence, and made to punish the defendant. This view is borne out by the positive statements of an entirely disinterested witness who saw the plaintiff fall before the car passed and without reaching the car, and by three other disinterested witnesses who testify of her admissions, directly after the accident, that she turned her ankle, slipped and fell while on her way from the curb . out to the car.

The defendant has a good exception in the refusal, upon motion, to direct a verdict, which motion, we think, should have been granted, upon all the evidence, which establishes the preponderance clearly in defendant’s favor.

Judgment and order should be reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

O’Dwyer, J., concurs.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Hascall, J.

A careful reading of the testimony forces the conclusion that the verdict is palpably against the weight of evidence, and made to punish the defendant. This view is borne out by the positive statements of an entirely disinterested witness who saw the plaintiff fall before the car passed and without reaching the car, and by three other disinterested witnesses who testify of her admissions, directly after the accident, that she turned her ankle, slipped and fell while on her way from the curb . out to the car.

The defendant has a good exception in the refusal, upon motion, to direct a verdict, which motion, we think, should have been granted, upon all the evidence, which establishes the preponderance clearly in defendant’s favor.

Judgment and order should be reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

O’Dwyer, J., concurs.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 826, 71 N.Y.S. 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/immergluck-v-central-crosstown-railroad-nynyccityct-1901.