Robischon v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robischon v. City of Utica

257 A.D. 1036, 13 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8981

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

DecidedJune 28, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1036 (Robischon v. City of Utica) 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

Robischon v. City of Utica, 257 A.D. 1036, 13 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The jury having found upon sufficient evidence that the defendants were acting in the performance of their duty as policemen, we find that the jury finding that the defendants used unnecessary and unreasonable force is against the weight of evidence. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Cunningham, J., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (The judgment is for plaintiff for damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of illegal force and negligence on the part of police officers. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The jury having found upon sufficient evidence that the defendants were acting in the performance of their duty as policemen, we find that the jury finding that the defendants used unnecessary and unreasonable force is against the weight of evidence. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Cunningham, J., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (The judgment is for plaintiff for damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of illegal force and negligence on the part of police officers. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1036, 13 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robischon-v-city-of-utica-nyappdiv-1939.