Lankes v. Loyal Order of Moose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lankes v. Loyal Order of Moose

12 A.D.2d 1001, 212 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12491

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 1001 (Lankes v. Loyal Order of Moose) 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

Lankes v. Loyal Order of Moose, 12 A.D.2d 1001, 212 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts and verdict reinstated, with costs. Memorandum: The Trial Judge unequivocably charged the jury that the question to be determined by them was “Did the defendant in this particular case use reasonable care in lighting this stairway ”, Although erroneous under the facts here presented (Kimbar v. Estis, 1 N Y 2d 399, 403) this charge became the law of the case by reason of the failure to take exception thereto (Civ. Prac. Act, § 446; Brown v. Du Frey, 1 N Y 2d 190, 196). The jury resolved the question of negligence as it related to the duty to light the stairway in plaintiff’s favor and the verdict should not have been set aside. All concur, except MeClusky and Henry, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (Appeal from order of Erie Trial Term, granting motion by defendant to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff and for a new trial, in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law and facts and verdict reinstated, with costs. Memorandum: The Trial Judge unequivocably charged the jury that the question to be determined by them was “Did the defendant in this particular case use reasonable care in lighting this stairway ”, Although erroneous under the facts here presented (Kimbar v. Estis, 1 N Y 2d 399, 403) this charge became the law of the case by reason of the failure to take exception thereto (Civ. Prac. Act, § 446; Brown v. Du Frey, 1 N Y 2d 190, 196). The jury resolved the question of negligence as it related to the duty to light the stairway in plaintiff’s favor and the verdict should not have been set aside. All concur, except MeClusky and Henry, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (Appeal from order of Erie Trial Term, granting motion by defendant to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff and for a new trial, in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 1001, 212 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lankes-v-loyal-order-of-moose-nyappdiv-1961.