Priola v. Tomasetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Priola v. Tomasetti

30 A.D.2d 691, 292 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742

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

DecidedJune 17, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 691 (Priola v. Tomasetti) 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

Priola v. Tomasetti, 30 A.D.2d 691, 292 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 10, 1966, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint and the third-party complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs against respondents Tomasetti and the Brooklyn Union Gas Company jointly, and new trial granted. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, plaintiff’s proof raised issues of fact for the jury as to the liability of either or both of the defendants. Hence, it was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s ease. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., not voting.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 10, 1966, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint and the third-party complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs against respondents Tomasetti and the Brooklyn Union Gas Company jointly, and new trial granted. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, plaintiff’s proof raised issues of fact for the jury as to the liability of either or both of the defendants. Hence, it was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s ease. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 691, 292 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priola-v-tomasetti-nyappdiv-1968.