Jones v. Poinciana Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Poinciana Realty Corp.

268 A.D. 877, 50 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D. 877 (Jones v. Poinciana Realty Corp.) 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

Jones v. Poinciana Realty Corp., 268 A.D. 877, 50 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant, the owner of an apartment house, appeals from a judgment in favor of one of its tenants for personal injuries sustained through being scalded while in his bathtub. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error for the trial court to receive, over objection, opinion testimony to the effect that the sudden gush of scalding water which caused plaintiff’s injuries could have been caused by the sudden drawing off of a large quantity of cold water by other tenants in the house, or by the sudden clearing up of a clogged condition in plaintiff's hot-water pipe. That testimony was withgut factual support in the evidence and was prejudicial. (White v. Prudential Insurance Co., 120 App. Div. 260, 263; Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 86, 90, 91.) The court has considered the questions of fact and-has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions were it not for the error alluded to. Close, P. J., Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Aldrich, J., votes to reverse on the facts and to grant a new trial, with costs to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; Lewis, J., not voting.

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

Defendant, the owner of an apartment house, appeals from a judgment in favor of one of its tenants for personal injuries sustained through being scalded while in his bathtub. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error for the trial court to receive, over objection, opinion testimony to the effect that the sudden gush of scalding water which caused plaintiff’s injuries could have been caused by the sudden drawing off of a large quantity of cold water by other tenants in the house, or by the sudden clearing up of a clogged condition in plaintiff's hot-water pipe. That testimony was withgut factual support in the evidence and was prejudicial. (White v. Prudential Insurance Co., 120 App. Div. 260, 263; Harrison v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 86, 90, 91.) The court has considered the questions of fact and-has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions were it not for the error alluded to. Close, P. J., Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Aldrich, J., votes to reverse on the facts and to grant a new trial, with costs to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; Lewis, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D. 877, 50 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-poinciana-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack