Marziliano v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marziliano v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

31 A.D.2d 739, 296 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4731

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 739 (Marziliano v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.) 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

Marziliano v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 31 A.D.2d 739, 296 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered January 12, 1968, setting aside verdict in favor of the defendants against plaintiff Josephine Marziliano, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants and the verdict reinstated. In this personal injury action, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding both drivers of the vehicles involved to have been negligent. The jury made a further explicit finding that the mental illness of the plaintiff-respondent, a passenger in the automobile driven by her husband, was not attributable to the slight contact between the two vehicles. The record amply supports this latter finding. No valid reason appears which justified that the verdict in favor of the defendants as against this plaintiff be set aside. (Vaughn-Rees v. Connolly, 30 A D 2d 785; Sherman v. Smith, 23 A D 2d 642; Salvitelli v. Janusz, 19 A D 2d 886; Marton v. McCasland, 16 A D 2d 781; Carkner v. Strokes, 276 App. Div. 866.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Eager, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered January 12, 1968, setting aside verdict in favor of the defendants against plaintiff Josephine Marziliano, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants and the verdict reinstated. In this personal injury action, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding both drivers of the vehicles involved to have been negligent. The jury made a further explicit finding that the mental illness of the plaintiff-respondent, a passenger in the automobile driven by her husband, was not attributable to the slight contact between the two vehicles. The record amply supports this latter finding. No valid reason appears which justified that the verdict in favor of the defendants as against this plaintiff be set aside. (Vaughn-Rees v. Connolly, 30 A D 2d 785; Sherman v. Smith, 23 A D 2d 642; Salvitelli v. Janusz, 19 A D 2d 886; Marton v. McCasland, 16 A D 2d 781; Carkner v. Strokes, 276 App. Div. 866.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Eager, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 739, 296 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marziliano-v-firestone-tire-rubber-co-nyappdiv-1969.