Ivans v. Behrens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ivans v. Behrens

256 A.D. 1005, 10 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5861

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1005 (Ivans v. Behrens) 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

Ivans v. Behrens, 256 A.D. 1005, 10 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action by husband and wife, the former sued to recover for personal injuries, property damage and loss of services, and the latter for personal injuries. The court failed to instruct the jury that if they found for plaintiffs they should specify the amount each should receive. A sealed verdict Was ordered and it was opened the following morning in the presence of the jury. The jury not having been discharged, the court, instead of sending the jury back to reconsider their verdict and correct it, set aside the verdict as improper in form and “ because in the case of Mr. Ivans, it is inadequate,” and granted a new trial. Under the circumstances the order must be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

In a negligence action by husband and wife, the former sued to recover for personal injuries, property damage and loss of services, and the latter for personal injuries. The court failed to instruct the jury that if they found for plaintiffs they should specify the amount each should receive. A sealed verdict Was ordered and it was opened the following morning in the presence of the jury. The jury not having been discharged, the court, instead of sending the jury back to reconsider their verdict and correct it, set aside the verdict as improper in form and “ because in the case of Mr. Ivans, it is inadequate,” and granted a new trial. Under the circumstances the order must be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1005, 10 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivans-v-behrens-nyappdiv-1939.