Laginsky v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laginsky v. Shapiro

248 A.D. 219, 288 N.Y.S. 1023, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6122

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

DecidedJune 23, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 219 (Laginsky v. Shapiro) 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

Laginsky v. Shapiro, 248 A.D. 219, 288 N.Y.S. 1023, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We consider this record presented solely questions of fact which were properly submitted to the jury in a full, fair and impartial charge to which plaintiff took no exceptions, except as to the measure of damages which is here immaterial. There was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the jury that the steel window frame was installed in accordance with approved construction practice for this type of construction and that the negligence of the coworker of the deceased was the proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly it was error on the part of the trial court to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants.

The order setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial should be reversed, with costs and disbursements, the motion denied, and the verdict reinstated.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and disbursements, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated.

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

Per Curiam.

We consider this record presented solely questions of fact which were properly submitted to the jury in a full, fair and impartial charge to which plaintiff took no exceptions, except as to the measure of damages which is here immaterial. There was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the jury that the steel window frame was installed in accordance with approved construction practice for this type of construction and that the negligence of the coworker of the deceased was the proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly it was error on the part of the trial court to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants.

The order setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial should be reversed, with costs and disbursements, the motion denied, and the verdict reinstated.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and disbursements, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 219, 288 N.Y.S. 1023, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laginsky-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-1936.