Kunzmann v. New York & R. B. Ry. Co.

New York City Court

Kunzmann v. New York & R. B. Ry. Co.

32 N.Y.S. 1145, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 876

DecidedMarch 25, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 1145 (Kunzmann v. New York & R. B. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kunzmann v. New York & R. B. Ry. Co., 32 N.Y.S. 1145, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 876 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was injured while alighting from a train. Whether or not it was the train of the defendant or of the Long Island Railroad Company was controverted. The appellant insists that the evidence was insufficient to carry this question to the jury, and this alone we are asked to pass upon. The plaintiff’s case in this respect is much stronger than it was on the former appeal, and the force of the affirmative testimony offered by the defendant to show that it was the train of the Long Island Railroad Company was so weakened by •contradictions and inconsistencies therein, and by the manifest bias of the witnesses and their doubts on material points, as to justify the jury in discrediting the same. This question was properly submitted to the jury. See our opinion on the former appeal in this case (Kunzmann v. Railroad Co., 8 Misc. Rep. 689. 29 N. Y. Supp. 327). Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See 27 N. Y. Supp. 132; 29 N. Y. Supp. 327.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was injured while alighting from a train. Whether or not it was the train of the defendant or of the Long Island Railroad Company was controverted. The appellant insists that the evidence was insufficient to carry this question to the jury, and this alone we are asked to pass upon. The plaintiff’s case in this respect is much stronger than it was on the former appeal, and the force of the affirmative testimony offered by the defendant to show that it was the train of the Long Island Railroad Company was so weakened by •contradictions and inconsistencies therein, and by the manifest bias of the witnesses and their doubts on material points, as to justify the jury in discrediting the same. This question was properly submitted to the jury. See our opinion on the former appeal in this case (Kunzmann v. Railroad Co., 8 Misc. Rep. 689. 29 N. Y. Supp. 327). Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See 27 N. Y. Supp. 132; 29 N. Y. Supp. 327.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 1145, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunzmann-v-new-york-r-b-ry-co-nycityct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack