Israel v. D'Autilia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Israel v. D'Autilia

22 A.D.2d 899, 255 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2571

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 899 (Israel v. D'Autilia) 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

Israel v. D'Autilia, 22 A.D.2d 899, 255 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made December 18, 1963 after a jury trial, which: (1) set aside the jury’s verdict in her favor; (2) directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Steven Israel; and (3) set the action down for assessment of damages by a jury. The action by plaintiff Pauline Israel for property damage was discontinued at the trial. Order modified on the law and the facts as follows: (1) by striking out the second and third decretal paragraphs directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and setting the action down for an assessment of damages; and (2) by adding a decretal paragraph directing a new trial. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to abide the event of the new trial. While it was proper in this case to set aside the jury’s verdict in defendant’s favor we believe it was improper to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Steven Israel. On this record it may not be said as matter of law that the defendant was negligent in the operation of her automobile or that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence in the operation of the motorcycle. The conduct of both parties in the operation of their respective vehicles presented issues of fact with respect to their negligence. The case should be tried de novo. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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 injury, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made December 18, 1963 after a jury trial, which: (1) set aside the jury’s verdict in her favor; (2) directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Steven Israel; and (3) set the action down for assessment of damages by a jury. The action by plaintiff Pauline Israel for property damage was discontinued at the trial. Order modified on the law and the facts as follows: (1) by striking out the second and third decretal paragraphs directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and setting the action down for an assessment of damages; and (2) by adding a decretal paragraph directing a new trial. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to abide the event of the new trial. While it was proper in this case to set aside the jury’s verdict in defendant’s favor we believe it was improper to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Steven Israel. On this record it may not be said as matter of law that the defendant was negligent in the operation of her automobile or that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence in the operation of the motorcycle. The conduct of both parties in the operation of their respective vehicles presented issues of fact with respect to their negligence. The case should be tried de novo. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 899, 255 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/israel-v-dautilia-nyappdiv-1964.