Miller v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

257 A.D. 998, 13 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866

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

DecidedJune 27, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 998 (Miller v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.) 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

Miller v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp., 257 A.D. 998, 13 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for damages for personal injuries claimed to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in the manner of the operation of the doors of its trolley car while plaintiff was attempting to alight therefrom. Judgment for the plaintiff reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. This view is inescapable when the vague and contradictory version of the accident given by the plaintiff is considered in connection with the version thereof furnished by the defendant’s witnesses, Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well and Taylor, JJ., concur; Adel, J., concurs for reversal, but dissents as to a new trial and votes to dismiss the complaint.

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

Action for damages for personal injuries claimed to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in the manner of the operation of the doors of its trolley car while plaintiff was attempting to alight therefrom. Judgment for the plaintiff reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. This view is inescapable when the vague and contradictory version of the accident given by the plaintiff is considered in connection with the version thereof furnished by the defendant’s witnesses, Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well and Taylor, JJ., concur; Adel, J., concurs for reversal, but dissents as to a new trial and votes to dismiss the complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 998, 13 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-brooklyn-queens-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1939.