Mawhinney v. Porte Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mawhinney v. Porte Manufacturing Co.

21 A.D.2d 809, 250 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528

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

DecidedJune 15, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 809 (Mawhinney v. Porte Manufacturing 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

Mawhinney v. Porte Manufacturing Co., 21 A.D.2d 809, 250 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injury to person and property, in which the defendant Porte Manufacturing Co., Inc., interposed a cross complaint against the defendant Stauffer, the said two defendants appeal as follows: (a) the defendant Porte appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 14, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor against both defendants and upon the court’s decision dismissing its (the defendant Porte’s) cross complaint; and (b) the defendant Stauffer appeals, as limited by his brief, from the portion of the judgment which was in the plaintiff’s favor. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted with respect to both the prime complaint and the cross complaint, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was against the weight of evidence on the issue of contributory negligence (see Massey v. Matza, 11 A D 2d 36, affd. 13 N Y 2d 631; Axelrod v. Krupinski, 278 App. Div. 934, affd. 303 N. Y. 738). We are also of the opinion that the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that the defendants were joint tort-feasors. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for injury to person and property, in which the defendant Porte Manufacturing Co., Inc., interposed a cross complaint against the defendant Stauffer, the said two defendants appeal as follows: (a) the defendant Porte appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 14, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor against both defendants and upon the court’s decision dismissing its (the defendant Porte’s) cross complaint; and (b) the defendant Stauffer appeals, as limited by his brief, from the portion of the judgment which was in the plaintiff’s favor. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted with respect to both the prime complaint and the cross complaint, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was against the weight of evidence on the issue of contributory negligence (see Massey v. Matza, 11 A D 2d 36, affd. 13 N Y 2d 631; Axelrod v. Krupinski, 278 App. Div. 934, affd. 303 N. Y. 738). We are also of the opinion that the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that the defendants were joint tort-feasors. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 809, 250 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mawhinney-v-porte-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack