Lebron v. New York City Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Lebron v. New York City Transit Authority

377 N.E.2d 482, 44 N.Y.2d 782, 44 N.Y. 782, 406 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1976

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 27, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 377 N.E.2d 482 (Lebron v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lebron v. New York City Transit Authority, 377 N.E.2d 482, 44 N.Y.2d 782, 44 N.Y. 782, 406 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1976 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs to abide the event, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial.

The trial court charged the jury without exception that the provision in the free pass, on which plaintiff was riding at the time of the accident, exempting defendant from liability would be binding on plaintiff if she had received the pass as a gratuity, but not binding if it had been received by her as part of her compensation. The burden on this issue rested on defendant. We find no evidence in the record that the pass had been issued as a gratuity — indeed defendant’s counsel admitted as much on trial — and the documentary evidence considered by the Appellate Division dehors the record is inconclusive. Accordingly, the verdict for defendant is not supportable on the ground that the defense predicated on the pass had been established.

Inasmuch as it cannot be concluded, then, that the general verdict of the jury in favor of defendant was not based on this ground, the verdict must be vacated and a new trial ordered.

*784 Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs to abide the event, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial.

The trial court charged the jury without exception that the provision in the free pass, on which plaintiff was riding at the time of the accident, exempting defendant from liability would be binding on plaintiff if she had received the pass as a gratuity, but not binding if it had been received by her as part of her compensation. The burden on this issue rested on defendant. We find no evidence in the record that the pass had been issued as a gratuity — indeed defendant’s counsel admitted as much on trial — and the documentary evidence considered by the Appellate Division dehors the record is inconclusive. Accordingly, the verdict for defendant is not supportable on the ground that the defense predicated on the pass had been established.

Inasmuch as it cannot be concluded, then, that the general verdict of the jury in favor of defendant was not based on this ground, the verdict must be vacated and a new trial ordered.

*784 Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 N.E.2d 482, 44 N.Y.2d 782, 44 N.Y. 782, 406 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lebron-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack