Ressler v. Lavarnway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ressler v. Lavarnway

51 A.D.2d 734, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11233

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 734 (Ressler v. Lavarnway) 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

Ressler v. Lavarnway, 51 A.D.2d 734, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated negligence actions, the plaintiffs in Actions No. 2 and 3 appeal from (1) separate judgments of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 31, 1974 and November 13, 1974, respectively, and made after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant in each such action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 11, 1974, which denied their respective motions to set aside the jury verdict. Judgments and order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record does not indicate any inadequacy in the charge (and there had been no objection made on that ground at the trial); nor does the record show that the jury was confused at the time it was ready to render its verdict. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani, Christ and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated negligence actions, the plaintiffs in Actions No. 2 and 3 appeal from (1) separate judgments of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 31, 1974 and November 13, 1974, respectively, and made after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant in each such action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 11, 1974, which denied their respective motions to set aside the jury verdict. Judgments and order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record does not indicate any inadequacy in the charge (and there had been no objection made on that ground at the trial); nor does the record show that the jury was confused at the time it was ready to render its verdict. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani, Christ and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 734, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ressler-v-lavarnway-nyappdiv-1976.