O'Neill v. Cromp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. Cromp

28 A.D.2d 1075, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3315

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 1075 (O'Neill v. Cromp) 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

O'Neill v. Cromp, 28 A.D.2d 1075, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The motion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of the evidence by defendant railroad company should have been granted. Upon all the proof the jury by no rational process could have based a finding that this defendant was negligent (cf. Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N. Y. 241; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 4401.14). The jury returned a verdict against all defendants of $5,000 “plus expenses”. The court refused to accept the verdict and with precision instructed the jury without objection that the “expenses” totaled $889.45. In eight minutes the jury returned with a verdict of $6,000. Upon all the proof we find that plaintiff’s recovery should be $5,889.45. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term, in a negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Henry, Del Veechio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The motion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of the evidence by defendant railroad company should have been granted. Upon all the proof the jury by no rational process could have based a finding that this defendant was negligent (cf. Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N. Y. 241; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 4401.14). The jury returned a verdict against all defendants of $5,000 “plus expenses”. The court refused to accept the verdict and with precision instructed the jury without objection that the “expenses” totaled $889.45. In eight minutes the jury returned with a verdict of $6,000. Upon all the proof we find that plaintiff’s recovery should be $5,889.45. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term, in a negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Henry, Del Veechio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 1075, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-cromp-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack