Murray v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. Anderson

236 A.D. 476, 258 N.Y.S. 1086, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6005

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 476 (Murray v. Anderson) 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

Murray v. Anderson, 236 A.D. 476, 258 N.Y.S. 1086, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The main charge may be subject to hyper-criticism with respect to its accuracy and completeness concerning the duty resting upon defendant if confronted with an emergency not of his own creating. However, the inaccuracy is not necessarily of serious importance and it was not called sharply to the attention of the learned trial court by plaintiff’s counsel, either through exception or request. The omission of the court to charge upon request of plaintiff’s counsel as to an emergency created by defendant was negligible under the facts presented, and here again no exception was taken. Considering the testimony, the result reached and the charge as a whole, we find neither errors nor incompleteness of such materiality that in fairness to plaintiff a new trial should be ordered.

All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Crosby, J., who dissent and vote for affirmance.

Order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, motion denied, and verdict reinstated, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The main charge may be subject to hyper-criticism with respect to its accuracy and completeness concerning the duty resting upon defendant if confronted with an emergency not of his own creating. However, the inaccuracy is not necessarily of serious importance and it was not called sharply to the attention of the learned trial court by plaintiff’s counsel, either through exception or request. The omission of the court to charge upon request of plaintiff’s counsel as to an emergency created by defendant was negligible under the facts presented, and here again no exception was taken. Considering the testimony, the result reached and the charge as a whole, we find neither errors nor incompleteness of such materiality that in fairness to plaintiff a new trial should be ordered.

All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Crosby, J., who dissent and vote for affirmance.

Order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, motion denied, and verdict reinstated, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 476, 258 N.Y.S. 1086, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-anderson-nyappdiv-1932.