Salas v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salas v. City of New York

30 A.D.2d 944, 293 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3220

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 944 (Salas v. City of New York) 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

Salas v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 944, 293 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, after a jury trial, in this wrongful death action, in plaintiff’s. favor, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and complaint dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. It is extremely doubtful whether the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is sufficient to spell out negligence on the part of this defendant under the circumstances of this case. However, assuming arguendo, that the defendant was negligent, there is no evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that such negligence was the proximate cause of the drowning of the deceased. In any event, were we not dismissing the complaint as a matter of law, we would reverse and grant a new trial on the ground that the court committed serious error in allowing a witness for the plaintiff to testify, over objection, as to what she had been told by another addict, who escaped with decedent and who did not testify at the trial. Without this patently improper evidence plaintiff did not sustain the burden that the deceased met his death in the course of his escape. Further grounds for reversal are that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and a majority of the court believes the amounts awarded were excessive. Concur— Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment, after a jury trial, in this wrongful death action, in plaintiff’s. favor, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and complaint dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. It is extremely doubtful whether the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is sufficient to spell out negligence on the part of this defendant under the circumstances of this case. However, assuming arguendo, that the defendant was negligent, there is no evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that such negligence was the proximate cause of the drowning of the deceased. In any event, were we not dismissing the complaint as a matter of law, we would reverse and grant a new trial on the ground that the court committed serious error in allowing a witness for the plaintiff to testify, over objection, as to what she had been told by another addict, who escaped with decedent and who did not testify at the trial. Without this patently improper evidence plaintiff did not sustain the burden that the deceased met his death in the course of his escape. Further grounds for reversal are that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and a majority of the court believes the amounts awarded were excessive. Concur— Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 944, 293 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salas-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1968.