James v. Tseng

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James v. Tseng

37 A.D.2d 824, 325 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 824 (James v. Tseng) 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

James v. Tseng, 37 A.D.2d 824, 325 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term, First Department, entered on April 7, 1970, reversing a judgment of the Civil Court, in plaintiffs’ favor, after a jury trial, and dismissing the complaint herein, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, entered on November 4, 1968, in plaintiffs’ favor, is reinstated. Plaintiffs-appellants shall recover of defendant-respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In view of the conflicting testimony in the record, questions of fact were presented to the jury involving the degree of visibility, the exact place on the highway where the accident occurred and whether the location was devoid of any shoulder in the immediate area which would prevent the plaintiffs from moving their cars off the highway. It was solely the jury’s responsibility to decide whether, upon all the evidence in the case, the plaintiffs were guilty of any contributory negligence and its verdict should [825]*825not have been disturbed. There was no request by the defendant for the trial court to charge, under sections 1200 and 1201 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the defendant cannot now raise that issue. (Chapman v. Thirty-Ninth St. Realty Corp., 26 A D 2d 806.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, McNally and Macken, JJ.

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

Order of the Appellate Term, First Department, entered on April 7, 1970, reversing a judgment of the Civil Court, in plaintiffs’ favor, after a jury trial, and dismissing the complaint herein, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, entered on November 4, 1968, in plaintiffs’ favor, is reinstated. Plaintiffs-appellants shall recover of defendant-respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In view of the conflicting testimony in the record, questions of fact were presented to the jury involving the degree of visibility, the exact place on the highway where the accident occurred and whether the location was devoid of any shoulder in the immediate area which would prevent the plaintiffs from moving their cars off the highway. It was solely the jury’s responsibility to decide whether, upon all the evidence in the case, the plaintiffs were guilty of any contributory negligence and its verdict should [825]*825not have been disturbed. There was no request by the defendant for the trial court to charge, under sections 1200 and 1201 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the defendant cannot now raise that issue. (Chapman v. Thirty-Ninth St. Realty Corp., 26 A D 2d 806.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, McNally and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 824, 325 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-tseng-nyappdiv-1971.