Porter v. Holford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porter v. Holford

282 A.D. 915, 125 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5404

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 915 (Porter v. Holford) 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

Porter v. Holford, 282 A.D. 915, 125 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff proved a prima facie case and was entitled to recover one half the reasonable value of the cost of necessary repairs to the roadway. There is some proof here from which the jury could find that the defendant’s property was damaged by reason of the repairs or construction of the roadway. We are unable to tell from this record how the jury arrived at the verdict of no cause of action. We think in the interest of justice there should be a new trial and the court should submit special questions to the jury including (1) What was the reasonable value of the cost of necessary repairs to the roadway? (2) Was the defendant’s property damaged by the repair or reconstruction of the roadway? (3) If the second question is answered in the affirmative, what was the amount of the damage? If the jury answers those questions the court can then direct a general verdict based upon the findings of the jury. All concur, except Kimball and Wheeler, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment for no cause of action both as to plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s counterclaim in an action for breach of contract.) Present — MeCurn, 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 reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff proved a prima facie case and was entitled to recover one half the reasonable value of the cost of necessary repairs to the roadway. There is some proof here from which the jury could find that the defendant’s property was damaged by reason of the repairs or construction of the roadway. We are unable to tell from this record how the jury arrived at the verdict of no cause of action. We think in the interest of justice there should be a new trial and the court should submit special questions to the jury including (1) What was the reasonable value of the cost of necessary repairs to the roadway? (2) Was the defendant’s property damaged by the repair or reconstruction of the roadway? (3) If the second question is answered in the affirmative, what was the amount of the damage? If the jury answers those questions the court can then direct a general verdict based upon the findings of the jury. All concur, except Kimball and Wheeler, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment for no cause of action both as to plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s counterclaim in an action for breach of contract.) Present — MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 915, 125 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-holford-nyappdiv-1953.