Indence v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Indence v. Long Island Railroad

15 A.D.2d 816, 225 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11250

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 816 (Indence v. Long Island Railroad) 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

Indence v. Long Island Railroad, 15 A.D.2d 816, 225 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In our opinion, on the proof adduced, there was considerable dispute as to the precise place where the testatrix was injured — whether at the broken curbing as alleged in the bill of particulars, or on the unbroken threshold, as claimed by defendant. Under these circumstances, it could not be properly held that the evidence preponderated so greatly in favor of plaintiffs as to establish that the jury’s verdict for the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (Areson v. Hempstead Bus Corp., 14 A D 2d 790; Herman v. Hubert, 12 A D 2d 767; Holpp v. Carafa, 8 A D 2d 617). In any event, upon the facts adduced, the jury was free to find that testatrix was guilty of contributory negligence which barred plaintiffs from any recovery. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In our opinion, on the proof adduced, there was considerable dispute as to the precise place where the testatrix was injured — whether at the broken curbing as alleged in the bill of particulars, or on the unbroken threshold, as claimed by defendant. Under these circumstances, it could not be properly held that the evidence preponderated so greatly in favor of plaintiffs as to establish that the jury’s verdict for the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (Areson v. Hempstead Bus Corp., 14 A D 2d 790; Herman v. Hubert, 12 A D 2d 767; Holpp v. Carafa, 8 A D 2d 617). In any event, upon the facts adduced, the jury was free to find that testatrix was guilty of contributory negligence which barred plaintiffs from any recovery. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 816, 225 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indence-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1962.