Slocum v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slocum v. Solomon

84 A.D.2d 946, 446 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16219

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 84 A.D.2d 946 (Slocum v. Solomon) 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

Slocum v. Solomon, 84 A.D.2d 946, 446 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In affirming, we note that in a memorandum decision denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict of no cause of action as to defendant Bologna’s estate, the Trial Judge wrote that he agreed with plaintiff’s argument that “the evidence clearly demonstrated the operator of the Bologna vehicle was negligent”. If that statement was intended to mean, as now urged by plaintiff, but without our concurrence, that the trial court would have granted the motion to set aside the verdict if the only issue on the motion was the question of Bologna’s negligence, it must be rejected. In its charge, the court properly submitted to the jury the question of whether plaintiff’s intestate, Slocum, or defendant’s intestate, Bologna, was the operator of the vehicle in which both were occupants at the time of the accident. It was only upon a finding that Bologna was the operator that the jury was to resolve the question of negligence. It may not be said as to either issue that the preponderance of the evidence in plaintiff’s favor was “so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Boyle v Gretch, 57 AD2d 1047, 1048). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court, Yesawich, J. — automobile negligence.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In affirming, we note that in a memorandum decision denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict of no cause of action as to defendant Bologna’s estate, the Trial Judge wrote that he agreed with plaintiff’s argument that “the evidence clearly demonstrated the operator of the Bologna vehicle was negligent”. If that statement was intended to mean, as now urged by plaintiff, but without our concurrence, that the trial court would have granted the motion to set aside the verdict if the only issue on the motion was the question of Bologna’s negligence, it must be rejected. In its charge, the court properly submitted to the jury the question of whether plaintiff’s intestate, Slocum, or defendant’s intestate, Bologna, was the operator of the vehicle in which both were occupants at the time of the accident. It was only upon a finding that Bologna was the operator that the jury was to resolve the question of negligence. It may not be said as to either issue that the preponderance of the evidence in plaintiff’s favor was “so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Boyle v Gretch, 57 AD2d 1047, 1048). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court, Yesawich, J. — automobile negligence.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 946, 446 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slocum-v-solomon-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack