Reisner v. New York Kosher Provisions, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reisner v. New York Kosher Provisions, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 511, 267 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 511 (Reisner v. New York Kosher Provisions, Inc.) 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

Reisner v. New York Kosher Provisions, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 511, 267 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment based on an order directing a jury verdict

in favor of defendants in personal injury negligence action unanimously reversed, on the law, the judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to abide the event. Plaintiffs made out a prima facie case on the issues of negligence and freedom from contributory negligence, and therefore the court was without power to direct a verdict (Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N. Y. 584, 586; Wearever Upholstery & Furniture Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 286 App. Div. 93). The expert witness testified with respect to his experience in retail store floor construction and, in effect, that the construction in question did not conform to safe and proper construction and practice. This was sufficient to raise an issue of fact for the jury (Meyer v. West End Equities, 12 N Y 2d 698, revg. on dis. opn. of Mr. Justice Valente at the Appellate Division, 13 A D 2d 938; Berman v. H. J. Enterprises, 13 A D 2d 200, 201-202; Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 192). While the evidence in plaintiffs’ favor was weak, indeed, and might have warranted the court in setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, there was no basis for direction of a verdict (Wearever Upholstery & Furniture Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., supra).

Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment based on an order directing a jury verdict

in favor of defendants in personal injury negligence action unanimously reversed, on the law, the judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to abide the event. Plaintiffs made out a prima facie case on the issues of negligence and freedom from contributory negligence, and therefore the court was without power to direct a verdict (Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N. Y. 584, 586; Wearever Upholstery & Furniture Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 286 App. Div. 93). The expert witness testified with respect to his experience in retail store floor construction and, in effect, that the construction in question did not conform to safe and proper construction and practice. This was sufficient to raise an issue of fact for the jury (Meyer v. West End Equities, 12 N Y 2d 698, revg. on dis. opn. of Mr. Justice Valente at the Appellate Division, 13 A D 2d 938; Berman v. H. J. Enterprises, 13 A D 2d 200, 201-202; Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 192). While the evidence in plaintiffs’ favor was weak, indeed, and might have warranted the court in setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, there was no basis for direction of a verdict (Wearever Upholstery & Furniture Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., supra).

Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 511, 267 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reisner-v-new-york-kosher-provisions-inc-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack