Munz v. Prestwick Press, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munz v. Prestwick Press, Inc.

46 A.D.2d 682, 360 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3924

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 682 (Munz v. Prestwick Press, Inc.) 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

Munz v. Prestwick Press, Inc., 46 A.D.2d 682, 360 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

— On July 9, 1973, this court (1) reversed, on the law, an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 19, 1972, in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability, after a trial on that issue only, upon a special jury verdict that defendant was liable only for violation of section 240 of the Labor Law, and (2) dismissed the complaint; thereafter, on June 19, 1974, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and remitted the case to us for a determination of the facts, if any, raised in this court (Mime V. Prestwick Press, 42 A D 2d 734, revd. 34 N Y 2d 847). This court now reverses the interlocutory judgment, on the facts, and grants a new trial, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the verdict of the jury was contrary to thé weight of the evidence. Latham, Acting P. J., Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Shapiro and Munder, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The Court of Appeals remitted this case to this court for “ determination of questions of fact, if any,” raised on the appeal to this court. When the ease was before this court, appellant raised no question of fact. Instead, in its brief, it said merely that a single question of law was presented. We, therefore, vote to affirm.

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

— On July 9, 1973, this court (1) reversed, on the law, an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 19, 1972, in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability, after a trial on that issue only, upon a special jury verdict that defendant was liable only for violation of section 240 of the Labor Law, and (2) dismissed the complaint; thereafter, on June 19, 1974, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and remitted the case to us for a determination of the facts, if any, raised in this court (Mime V. Prestwick Press, 42 A D 2d 734, revd. 34 N Y 2d 847). This court now reverses the interlocutory judgment, on the facts, and grants a new trial, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the verdict of the jury was contrary to thé weight of the evidence. Latham, Acting P. J., Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Shapiro and Munder, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The Court of Appeals remitted this case to this court for “ determination of questions of fact, if any,” raised on the appeal to this court. When the ease was before this court, appellant raised no question of fact. Instead, in its brief, it said merely that a single question of law was presented. We, therefore, vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 682, 360 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munz-v-prestwick-press-inc-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack