Mancuso v. Bellerive

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mancuso v. Bellerive

54 A.D.2d 689, 387 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14244

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 689 (Mancuso v. Bellerive) 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

Mancuso v. Bellerive, 54 A.D.2d 689, 387 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries (1) all defendants appeal from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 26, 1976, as is in favor of plaintiffs and against them, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only, and (2) defendants Bellerive and Perry also appeal from the balance of the interlocutory judgment, which is in favor of defendant Miscoe Spring Beverage Co., Inc., on its cross claim against them. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents against appellants jointly. The issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury; the Trial Judge properly declined to find contributory negligence as a matter of law. The Trial Judge was also correct in not charging the doctrine of assumption of risk. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries (1) all defendants appeal from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 26, 1976, as is in favor of plaintiffs and against them, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only, and (2) defendants Bellerive and Perry also appeal from the balance of the interlocutory judgment, which is in favor of defendant Miscoe Spring Beverage Co., Inc., on its cross claim against them. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents against appellants jointly. The issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury; the Trial Judge properly declined to find contributory negligence as a matter of law. The Trial Judge was also correct in not charging the doctrine of assumption of risk. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 689, 387 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancuso-v-bellerive-nyappdiv-1976.