Mozdzier v. Ruge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mozdzier v. Ruge

283 A.D. 685, 127 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 685 (Mozdzier v. Ruge) 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

Mozdzier v. Ruge, 283 A.D. 685, 127 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants Ruge affirmed, with costs; judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant City of Buffalo, and order, reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial granted as to defendant City of Buffalo, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Appeal from order denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence dismissed as academic. Memorandum: The verdict of the jury as against the defendants Ruge is supported by the evidence. We think that is not the case as to the defendant City of Buffalo. We also think the statement of the witness Williams should have been received in evidence on the question of his credibility. Although the summations of counsel are not before us, we assume that in the summation of counsel some reference was made to the failure of the defendant City of Buffalo to produce certain witnesses; if so, that defendant was entitled to the request made by its counsel. As there must be a new trial, we do not pass on the appeal from the order denying a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. All concur. (Appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

— Judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants Ruge affirmed, with costs; judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant City of Buffalo, and order, reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial granted as to defendant City of Buffalo, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Appeal from order denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence dismissed as academic. Memorandum: The verdict of the jury as against the defendants Ruge is supported by the evidence. We think that is not the case as to the defendant City of Buffalo. We also think the statement of the witness Williams should have been received in evidence on the question of his credibility. Although the summations of counsel are not before us, we assume that in the summation of counsel some reference was made to the failure of the defendant City of Buffalo to produce certain witnesses; if so, that defendant was entitled to the request made by its counsel. As there must be a new trial, we do not pass on the appeal from the order denying a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. All concur. (Appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 685, 127 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mozdzier-v-ruge-nyappdiv-1954.