Schwartz v. General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. General Motors Corp.

49 A.D.2d 820, 373 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10936

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 820 (Schwartz v. General Motors Corp.) 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

Schwartz v. General Motors Corp., 49 A.D.2d 820, 373 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on April 5, 1974, dismissing the complaint herein and awarding judgment to the defendants, after trial on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The verdict of the jury is supported by the record and plaintiff does not claim otherwise. His contention that the trial court improperly limited his proof to a specific defect in the gear assembly is without merit. It was plaintiff who moved for and obtained permission to serve a further amended bill of particulars wherein he alleged such specific defect and it was plaintiff’s expert who, by his testimony, attempted to establish that the accident was caused by such defect. A question of fact was thus raised, which the jury determined adversely to the plaintiff. We have examined the other points urged by plaintiff and find them to be without merit. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on April 5, 1974, dismissing the complaint herein and awarding judgment to the defendants, after trial on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The verdict of the jury is supported by the record and plaintiff does not claim otherwise. His contention that the trial court improperly limited his proof to a specific defect in the gear assembly is without merit. It was plaintiff who moved for and obtained permission to serve a further amended bill of particulars wherein he alleged such specific defect and it was plaintiff’s expert who, by his testimony, attempted to establish that the accident was caused by such defect. A question of fact was thus raised, which the jury determined adversely to the plaintiff. We have examined the other points urged by plaintiff and find them to be without merit. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 820, 373 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-general-motors-corp-nyappdiv-1975.