May v. Heiney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

May v. Heiney

15 A.D.2d 580, 223 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 580 (May v. Heiney) 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

May v. Heiney, 15 A.D.2d 580, 223 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In our opinion the verdict was excessive. It is also our opinion that under all the circumstances the error, if any, with respect to the admission of the testimony relating to the scope of the permission granted to use the automobile in question, did not prejudice any substantial right of the defendants, and must be disregarded (Civ. Prae. Act, § 106). Beldoek, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Christ, J., dissent as to the conditional reversal of the judgment and as to the conditional grant of a new trial, and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial unconditionally, on the grounds: (1) that it was error to permit the witness Buchanan to testify, over objection, to the conclusory fact that the use of the ear had not been “ limited ” by Terry Glasser, the daughter of defendant Libby Glasser; and (2) that, in view of the sharp issue as to the scope of the permission, such error is most substantial and requires the unconditional reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

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

In our opinion the verdict was excessive. It is also our opinion that under all the circumstances the error, if any, with respect to the admission of the testimony relating to the scope of the permission granted to use the automobile in question, did not prejudice any substantial right of the defendants, and must be disregarded (Civ. Prae. Act, § 106). Beldoek, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Christ, J., dissent as to the conditional reversal of the judgment and as to the conditional grant of a new trial, and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial unconditionally, on the grounds: (1) that it was error to permit the witness Buchanan to testify, over objection, to the conclusory fact that the use of the ear had not been “ limited ” by Terry Glasser, the daughter of defendant Libby Glasser; and (2) that, in view of the sharp issue as to the scope of the permission, such error is most substantial and requires the unconditional reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 580, 223 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-heiney-nyappdiv-1961.