Rank v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rank v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co.

74 Misc. 2d 19, 343 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1948

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 11, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 74 Misc. 2d 19 (Rank v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rank v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co., 74 Misc. 2d 19, 343 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The rights of the parties must be determined by Federal law (Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239 [1942]; Riley v. Agwilines, 296 N. Y. 402 [1947]). The defendant must sustain the burden of proving that the prior recovery in the seaman’s negligence action included the claim for maintenance and cure asserted here (Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, 279 F. 2d 911, 916 [2d Cir., 1960]). The court below confessed to an inability to decide if the prior verdict included maintenance and cure elements due to a failure of proof and then erroneously dismissed the complaint. * ‘ The test to be applied * * * is a simple one: the items of damages specified and included in the instructions to the jury are presumed to be included in the general verdict ”. (Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, supra, pp. 915-916.)

[20]*20The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to abide the event.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Quinn and Frank, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The rights of the parties must be determined by Federal law (Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239 [1942]; Riley v. Agwilines, 296 N. Y. 402 [1947]). The defendant must sustain the burden of proving that the prior recovery in the seaman’s negligence action included the claim for maintenance and cure asserted here (Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, 279 F. 2d 911, 916 [2d Cir., 1960]). The court below confessed to an inability to decide if the prior verdict included maintenance and cure elements due to a failure of proof and then erroneously dismissed the complaint. * ‘ The test to be applied * * * is a simple one: the items of damages specified and included in the instructions to the jury are presumed to be included in the general verdict ”. (Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, supra, pp. 915-916.)

[20]*20The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to abide the event.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Quinn and Frank, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Misc. 2d 19, 343 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rank-v-colonial-sand-stone-co-nyappterm-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack