Poliani v. Scibilia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poliani v. Scibilia

281 A.D. 1071, 122 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360

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

DecidedMay 27, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 1071 (Poliani v. Scibilia) 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

Poliani v. Scibilia, 281 A.D. 1071, 122 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360 (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 appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The court should have charged the first request made by counsel for defendant as it correctly stated the rule of law and was not covered in the main charge. We also think the second request, even though counsel erroneously used the word defendant when the word plaintiff was clearly intended, should have been corrected in that respect and charged by the court; it also stated a correct rule of law and had not been covered by the main charge. While these errors may not have affected the verdict of the jury, we think there should be a new trial in the interest of justice. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., 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 appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The court should have charged the first request made by counsel for defendant as it correctly stated the rule of law and was not covered in the main charge. We also think the second request, even though counsel erroneously used the word defendant when the word plaintiff was clearly intended, should have been corrected in that respect and charged by the court; it also stated a correct rule of law and had not been covered by the main charge. While these errors may not have affected the verdict of the jury, we think there should be a new trial in the interest of justice. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1071, 122 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poliani-v-scibilia-nyappdiv-1953.