Romatowski v. Greenman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romatowski v. Greenman

16 A.D.2d 982, 230 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8975

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

DecidedJune 25, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 982 (Romatowski v. Greenman) 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

Romatowski v. Greenman, 16 A.D.2d 982, 230 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a fall from an allegedly defective ladder, manufactured by defendant Greenman, and thereafter sold by defendant Acme Scaffold Company, Inc., to the plaintiff’s employer, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 5, 1960 upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, after trial. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. In our opinion, the trial court’s charge to the jury was seriously prejudicial to plaintiff’s case, and deprived him of a fair trial. In the interests of justice a new trial is required. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a fall from an allegedly defective ladder, manufactured by defendant Greenman, and thereafter sold by defendant Acme Scaffold Company, Inc., to the plaintiff’s employer, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 5, 1960 upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, after trial. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. In our opinion, the trial court’s charge to the jury was seriously prejudicial to plaintiff’s case, and deprived him of a fair trial. In the interests of justice a new trial is required. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 982, 230 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romatowski-v-greenman-nyappdiv-1962.