Ruff v. Snyder

New York Court of Appeals

Ruff v. Snyder

399 N.E.2d 544, 48 N.Y.2d 756, 423 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2416

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 399 N.E.2d 544 (Ruff v. Snyder) 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

Ruff v. Snyder, 399 N.E.2d 544, 48 N.Y.2d 756, 423 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2416 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice Paul T. Kane.

We would note that at the time of this trial, proof of freedom from contributory negligence was a necessary element of the infant plaintiff’s case. Even if there were adequate evidence of the plaintiff’s amnesia, permitting a lower degree of proof of this element (Schechter v Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228), no request was made for this charge, nor was any objection made to the charge that the plaintiff had the standard burden. The unexcepted to charge became the law of the case (Olsen v Chase Manhattan Bank, 9 NY2d 829).

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

Order reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice Paul T. Kane.

We would note that at the time of this trial, proof of freedom from contributory negligence was a necessary element of the infant plaintiff’s case. Even if there were adequate evidence of the plaintiff’s amnesia, permitting a lower degree of proof of this element (Schechter v Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228), no request was made for this charge, nor was any objection made to the charge that the plaintiff had the standard burden. The unexcepted to charge became the law of the case (Olsen v Chase Manhattan Bank, 9 NY2d 829).

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

Order reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 N.E.2d 544, 48 N.Y.2d 756, 423 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruff-v-snyder-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack