Rivera v. Crumlish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Crumlish

24 A.D.2d 534, 261 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845

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

DecidedJune 23, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 534 (Rivera v. Crumlish) 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

Rivera v. Crumlish, 24 A.D.2d 534, 261 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment insofar as it is against the plaintiff for no cause of action against the defendants Crumlish and Sean Cab Corporation unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, and otherwise judgment affirmed. Memorandum: The verdict in favor of the defendants Crumlish and Sean Cab Corporation is against the weight of the evidence. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Trial Term in favor of defendants, Crumlish, Sean Cab, Roson, for no cause of action; as to defendant Colon, court granted motion to dismiss complaint at close of plaintiff’s case, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Judgment insofar as it is against the plaintiff for no cause of action against the defendants Crumlish and Sean Cab Corporation unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, and otherwise judgment affirmed. Memorandum: The verdict in favor of the defendants Crumlish and Sean Cab Corporation is against the weight of the evidence. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Trial Term in favor of defendants, Crumlish, Sean Cab, Roson, for no cause of action; as to defendant Colon, court granted motion to dismiss complaint at close of plaintiff’s case, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 534, 261 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-crumlish-nyappdiv-1965.