Parisi v. Lombardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parisi v. Lombardi

41 A.D.2d 560, 339 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 560 (Parisi v. Lombardi) 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

Parisi v. Lombardi, 41 A.D.2d 560, 339 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for- personal injuries and loss of services, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 27, 1972, in favor of defendant, upon a jury verdict, after á trial on the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new. trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appe.al did not present questions of fact. Despite the absence of any evidence which could conceivably support a finding that plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence, and over objection by their counsel, the trial court charged that doctrine. In the light of the evidence, this was error (Willis v. Young Men’s Christian Assn, of Amsterdam,, 28 N Y 2d 375). It was also error to bar plaintiffs’ expert ■from testifying to what his opinion was with respect to the cause of the fall of - the duet here in issue. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for- personal injuries and loss of services, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 27, 1972, in favor of defendant, upon a jury verdict, after á trial on the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new. trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appe.al did not present questions of fact. Despite the absence of any evidence which could conceivably support a finding that plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence, and over objection by their counsel, the trial court charged that doctrine. In the light of the evidence, this was error (Willis v. Young Men’s Christian Assn, of Amsterdam,, 28 N Y 2d 375). It was also error to bar plaintiffs’ expert ■from testifying to what his opinion was with respect to the cause of the fall of - the duet here in issue. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 560, 339 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parisi-v-lombardi-nyappdiv-1973.