Markel Cleaning & Dyeing Works, Inc. v. Rutkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Markel Cleaning & Dyeing Works, Inc. v. Rutkin

250 A.D. 820, 294 N.Y.S. 738, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 820 (Markel Cleaning & Dyeing Works, Inc. v. Rutkin) 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

Markel Cleaning & Dyeing Works, Inc. v. Rutkin, 250 A.D. 820, 294 N.Y.S. 738, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts and verdict reinstated, with costs. Memorandum: Being confined to the record before us in the review of this case, we disregard an apparently inconsistent verdict in another case [not reported] to which the opinion of the trial judge refers. The charge in the case at bar narrowed the issues to a single question of fact upon which clear instructions to the jury were given. There is nothing of record which indicates either a disregard of those instructions or “ irregularity, bias, unfairness or inadequate consideration of the testimony ” by the members of the jury in reaching their verdict. (Fitzgerald v. N. Y. C. B. B. Co., 215 App. Div. 1, 2.) While we are reluctant to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court, we are of the opinion that there was evidence upon which the jury could have found for the defendants upon the single issue of fact which was submitted for determination. All concur, except Crosby, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance. (The order sets aside the verdict of the jury in an action on a promissory note.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, 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: Being confined to the record before us in the review of this case, we disregard an apparently inconsistent verdict in another case [not reported] to which the opinion of the trial judge refers. The charge in the case at bar narrowed the issues to a single question of fact upon which clear instructions to the jury were given. There is nothing of record which indicates either a disregard of those instructions or “ irregularity, bias, unfairness or inadequate consideration of the testimony ” by the members of the jury in reaching their verdict. (Fitzgerald v. N. Y. C. B. B. Co., 215 App. Div. 1, 2.) While we are reluctant to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court, we are of the opinion that there was evidence upon which the jury could have found for the defendants upon the single issue of fact which was submitted for determination. All concur, except Crosby, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance. (The order sets aside the verdict of the jury in an action on a promissory note.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 820, 294 N.Y.S. 738, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markel-cleaning-dyeing-works-inc-v-rutkin-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack