Read v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Read v. City of New York

269 A.D. 1056, 58 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5248

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 1056 (Read v. City of New York) 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

Read v. City of New York, 269 A.D. 1056, 58 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, a six and a half-year-old boy, who was run over and killed by defendant’s truck while it was moving backward in a roadway. After trial, the jury found for the defendant, and the order from which an appeal is taken directs that the verdict be set aside and grants a new trial. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event. The trial court did not in its ruling or order state any reason for setting aside the verdict. We again call attention to the decision of this court in the case of Coleman v. Brooklyn £' Queens Transit Corp. (252 App. Div. 215), and suggest that the rule laid down therein be followed by trial courts. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ,

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

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, a six and a half-year-old boy, who was run over and killed by defendant’s truck while it was moving backward in a roadway. After trial, the jury found for the defendant, and the order from which an appeal is taken directs that the verdict be set aside and grants a new trial. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event. The trial court did not in its ruling or order state any reason for setting aside the verdict. We again call attention to the decision of this court in the case of Coleman v. Brooklyn £' Queens Transit Corp. (252 App. Div. 215), and suggest that the rule laid down therein be followed by trial courts. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 1056, 58 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/read-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack