Rainville v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rainville v. New York Telephone Co.

260 A.D. 881, 22 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5205

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 881 (Rainville v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Rainville v. New York Telephone Co., 260 A.D. 881, 22 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of a fall upon a claimed “ mess of wax ” on the floor of defendant’s place of business. Plaintiff was a business visitor on the premises. Judgment for the plaintiff and order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The finding of liability is against the weight of evidence. Furthermore, it was error to permit certain witnesses, who were jurors at the former trial, to testify to the appearance, at the time of that trial, of an exhibit not produced at the second trial, which testimony was the result of their observation and examination in the jury room. The testimony of how other persons apply wax in their business was not admissible. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Adel, JJ., concur; Johnston and Close, JJ., concur in result.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of a fall upon a claimed “ mess of wax ” on the floor of defendant’s place of business. Plaintiff was a business visitor on the premises. Judgment for the plaintiff and order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The finding of liability is against the weight of evidence. Furthermore, it was error to permit certain witnesses, who were jurors at the former trial, to testify to the appearance, at the time of that trial, of an exhibit not produced at the second trial, which testimony was the result of their observation and examination in the jury room. The testimony of how other persons apply wax in their business was not admissible. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Adel, JJ., concur; Johnston and Close, JJ., concur in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 881, 22 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainville-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack