In re the Arbitration between Lakin & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Lakin & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

23 A.D.2d 488, 255 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4988

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 488 (In re the Arbitration between Lakin & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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

In re the Arbitration between Lakin & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 23 A.D.2d 488, 255 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on May 20, 1964, vacating stay of arbitration contained in order entered on December 2, 1963, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed of the framed issue, “ Was there physical contact between petitioner and a hit and run car on April 6, 1962?” with $50 costs to abide the event. On this record petitioner’s credibility was in issue, and the direction of a verdict in his favor therefore unwarranted (Matter of Rosen [MVAIC], 22 A D 2d 671). It is sufficient to point to Patrolman Young’s testimony that petitioner did not tell him there was contact with the milk truck. The court appears to have been of the view that the verdict was mandated since a contrary verdict would have been against the weight of the credible evidence. “ But a final determination on the facts by a direction of verdict must rest on broader ground than weight of evidence alone. A direction may be made only when a contrary verdict would be set aside for legal insufficiency (Loewimthan v. Le Vvne, 299 N. Y. 372) ” (Davis v. Gatrisio Constr. Corp., 19 A D 2d 518, 519; and see Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N. Y. 241, 245). Unless the parties agree otherwise, the new trial should proceed before a jury, and the framed issue dealt with as one required to be tried by a jury, since the order entered on December 2, 1963 and the proceedings thereunder so contemplated. Whether originally there was a right to a jury trial is a question we do not reach (cf. Matter of Hutchinson [MVAIC], N. Y. L. J., July 17, 1964, p...7, col. 6).. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Eager and Staley, JJ.

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

Order, entered on May 20, 1964, vacating stay of arbitration contained in order entered on December 2, 1963, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed of the framed issue, “ Was there physical contact between petitioner and a hit and run car on April 6, 1962?” with $50 costs to abide the event. On this record petitioner’s credibility was in issue, and the direction of a verdict in his favor therefore unwarranted (Matter of Rosen [MVAIC], 22 A D 2d 671). It is sufficient to point to Patrolman Young’s testimony that petitioner did not tell him there was contact with the milk truck. The court appears to have been of the view that the verdict was mandated since a contrary verdict would have been against the weight of the credible evidence. “ But a final determination on the facts by a direction of verdict must rest on broader ground than weight of evidence alone. A direction may be made only when a contrary verdict would be set aside for legal insufficiency (Loewimthan v. Le Vvne, 299 N. Y. 372) ” (Davis v. Gatrisio Constr. Corp., 19 A D 2d 518, 519; and see Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N. Y. 241, 245). Unless the parties agree otherwise, the new trial should proceed before a jury, and the framed issue dealt with as one required to be tried by a jury, since the order entered on December 2, 1963 and the proceedings thereunder so contemplated. Whether originally there was a right to a jury trial is a question we do not reach (cf. Matter of Hutchinson [MVAIC], N. Y. L. J., July 17, 1964, p...7, col. 6).. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Eager and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 488, 255 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-lakin-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack