Rudes v. Walrath

New York Court of Appeals

Rudes v. Walrath

436 N.E.2d 1335, 56 N.Y.2d 703, 451 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3363

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 436 N.E.2d 1335 (Rudes v. Walrath) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rudes v. Walrath, 436 N.E.2d 1335, 56 N.Y.2d 703, 451 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3363 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. The determination by the Appellate Division which reverses Trial Term’s setting aside of a jury verdict as being against the weight of the credible evidence is beyond this court’s power of review (Goehle v Town of Smithtown, 55 NY2d 995; Rochester Tel. Corp. v Green Is. Constr. Corp., 51 NY2d 788; Gutin v Mascali & Sons, 11 NY2d 97, 99; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 148, p 588). As to the defects in the charge discussed in the dissent at the Appellate Division, no question of law was preserved for review by this court.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. The determination by the Appellate Division which reverses Trial Term’s setting aside of a jury verdict as being against the weight of the credible evidence is beyond this court’s power of review (Goehle v Town of Smithtown, 55 NY2d 995; Rochester Tel. Corp. v Green Is. Constr. Corp., 51 NY2d 788; Gutin v Mascali & Sons, 11 NY2d 97, 99; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 148, p 588). As to the defects in the charge discussed in the dissent at the Appellate Division, no question of law was preserved for review by this court.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 N.E.2d 1335, 56 N.Y.2d 703, 451 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudes-v-walrath-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack