Neumark v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neumark v. City of New York

31 A.D.2d 514, 295 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 514 (Neumark v. City of New York) 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

Neumark v. City of New York, 31 A.D.2d 514, 295 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, after a jury verdict in their favor on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed on thej law and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. A jury found in favor ofj plaintiffs on the issue of liability in this ease involving alleged negligence on the part of the City of Few York in the maintenance of its highways. The verdict should have been set aside as being against the weight of evidence. However, it is clear that the complaint should not have been dismissed. This is not a case in which plaintiffs’ “ evidence was so meager that in contemplation of law it could be said to be no evidence at all”. (Westbrook V. Green Bus Lines, 30 A D 2d 959.) Since a new trial is to be held we would point out that the trial court committed error in excluding evidence of custom and usage. (Kovalsky v. City of Watervliet, 5 A D 2d 324.) Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, after a jury verdict in their favor on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed on thej law and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. A jury found in favor ofj plaintiffs on the issue of liability in this ease involving alleged negligence on the part of the City of Few York in the maintenance of its highways. The verdict should have been set aside as being against the weight of evidence. However, it is clear that the complaint should not have been dismissed. This is not a case in which plaintiffs’ “ evidence was so meager that in contemplation of law it could be said to be no evidence at all”. (Westbrook V. Green Bus Lines, 30 A D 2d 959.) Since a new trial is to be held we would point out that the trial court committed error in excluding evidence of custom and usage. (Kovalsky v. City of Watervliet, 5 A D 2d 324.) Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 514, 295 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neumark-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1968.