Mullery v. Ro-Mill Construction Corp.

429 N.E.2d 419, 54 N.Y.2d 888, 444 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3092
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 15, 1981·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that court for review of the facts (CPLR 5613). Under the charge given by the trial court the jury was instructed to determine whether the decedent was so intoxicated as to be rendered incapable of understanding or appreciating the danger which confronted him. In view of this charge, to which no exception was taken, and on the evidence adduced at trial, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the decedent was contributorily negligent.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Mullery v. Ro-Mill Construction Corp., 429 N.E.2d 419, 54 N.Y.2d 888, 444 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3092 (N.Y. 1981).

429 N.E.2d 419 (Mullery v. Ro-Mill Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sarracino v. Martinez
870 P.2d 155 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1994)
Allen v. County of Westchester
109 A.D.2d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Muhaymin v. Negron
86 A.D.2d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)