Jackson v. Giammarino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. Giammarino

275 A.D.2d 951

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

DecidedJune 13, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 951 (Jackson v. Giammarino) 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

Jackson v. Giammarino, 275 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Carswell, Johnston and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Adel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: The court charged the jury that in order to [952]*952recover, respondent must establish that the particular part of the structure complained of caused or brought about the accident. In our opinion, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict based upon that charge. Since the deficiency in the proof may be supplied, a new trial should be granted.

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

No opinion. Carswell, Johnston and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Adel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: The court charged the jury that in order to [952]*952recover, respondent must establish that the particular part of the structure complained of caused or brought about the accident. In our opinion, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict based upon that charge. Since the deficiency in the proof may be supplied, a new trial should be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-giammarino-nyappdiv-1949.