Salvitelli v. Janusz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salvitelli v. Janusz

19 A.D.2d 886, 244 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2824

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 886 (Salvitelli v. Janusz) 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

Salvitelli v. Janusz, 19 A.D.2d 886, 244 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered October 4, 1961, setting aside a jury verdict in favor of defendants and granting a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and judgment directed thereon in favor of defendants. A jury verdict in favor of defendant may not be set aside unless it plainly appears that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. (Marion v. MoCasland, 16 A D 2d 781, 782, and eases cited therein.) The instant ease involved a clear issue of credibility. There was ample evidence to sustain the jury finding that the pedestrian was looking elsewhere while proceeding easterly and walked into the left front fender of the vehicle making the turn. The verdict for defendants was conclusive and the Trial Judge was in error in setting it aside. Concur — -Rabin, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order, entered October 4, 1961, setting aside a jury verdict in favor of defendants and granting a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and judgment directed thereon in favor of defendants. A jury verdict in favor of defendant may not be set aside unless it plainly appears that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. (Marion v. MoCasland, 16 A D 2d 781, 782, and eases cited therein.) The instant ease involved a clear issue of credibility. There was ample evidence to sustain the jury finding that the pedestrian was looking elsewhere while proceeding easterly and walked into the left front fender of the vehicle making the turn. The verdict for defendants was conclusive and the Trial Judge was in error in setting it aside. Concur — -Rabin, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 886, 244 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvitelli-v-janusz-nyappdiv-1963.