Kalin v. Robert Catino, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalin v. Robert Catino, Inc.

20 A.D.2d 549, 245 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 549 (Kalin v. Robert Catino, Inc.) 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

Kalin v. Robert Catino, Inc., 20 A.D.2d 549, 245 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a wife and her husband to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 14, 1963, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants and directed a new trial. Order reversed, without costs; motion to set aside verdict denied; and verdict reinstated. The female plaintiff, while walking along a public sidewalk, was struck by a portion of a wooden fence which fell upon her. The case was submitted to the jury under a charge to which the plaintiffs took no exception; nor did they request a specific charge on the theory of res ipsa loquitur. Hence, the charge became the law of the ease (Buckin v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 286 N. Y. 146; Jensen v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 3 A D 2d 647; Felice V. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 14 App. Div. 345, 349). Nor does it appear from the record that the jury could not have reached the conclusion they did on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Pertofsky v. Drucks, 16 A D 2d 690; Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, 544, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a wife and her husband to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 14, 1963, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants and directed a new trial. Order reversed, without costs; motion to set aside verdict denied; and verdict reinstated. The female plaintiff, while walking along a public sidewalk, was struck by a portion of a wooden fence which fell upon her. The case was submitted to the jury under a charge to which the plaintiffs took no exception; nor did they request a specific charge on the theory of res ipsa loquitur. Hence, the charge became the law of the ease (Buckin v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 286 N. Y. 146; Jensen v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 3 A D 2d 647; Felice V. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 14 App. Div. 345, 349). Nor does it appear from the record that the jury could not have reached the conclusion they did on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Pertofsky v. Drucks, 16 A D 2d 690; Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, 544, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 549, 245 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalin-v-robert-catino-inc-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack