Palmigiano v. Stiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmigiano v. Stiles

282 A.D. 826, 122 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5031

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 826 (Palmigiano v. Stiles) 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

Palmigiano v. Stiles, 282 A.D. 826, 122 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The photographs received in evidence clearly show that the left front of defendant’s ear collided with the left rear of the taxicab, from which an inference might be drawn that the taxicab entered the intersection before the defendant’s car. This inference might have been overcome in the minds of the jurors by other evidence, and in the absence of error we would accept the jury verdict. We conclude, however, that in a ease of this kind even slight error in the court’s charge may have affected the result. The court did not adequately charge the right of way rule. When requested to so charge he refused to do so. Appellant was entitled to the charge as requested and the court’s failure to so charge was error. We cannot say that this was not prejudicial to appellant and a new trial must be granted. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for defendant Stiles for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present ■ — McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

— Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The photographs received in evidence clearly show that the left front of defendant’s ear collided with the left rear of the taxicab, from which an inference might be drawn that the taxicab entered the intersection before the defendant’s car. This inference might have been overcome in the minds of the jurors by other evidence, and in the absence of error we would accept the jury verdict. We conclude, however, that in a ease of this kind even slight error in the court’s charge may have affected the result. The court did not adequately charge the right of way rule. When requested to so charge he refused to do so. Appellant was entitled to the charge as requested and the court’s failure to so charge was error. We cannot say that this was not prejudicial to appellant and a new trial must be granted. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for defendant Stiles for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present ■ — McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 826, 122 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmigiano-v-stiles-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack