Smiraldo v. Lashins Construction Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smiraldo v. Lashins Construction Industries, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 740, 263 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3303

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 740 (Smiraldo v. Lashins Construction Industries, Inc.) 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

Smiraldo v. Lashins Construction Industries, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 740, 263 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $147,244 unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The charge, as a whole, was much too general and did not sufficiently relate the applicable law to the facts of the case. It failed to “give the jury the guidance that the law requires” (O’Connor v. 595 Realty Assoc., 23 A D 2d 69, 74; Arroyo v. Judena Taxi, 20 A D 2d 888; Molnar v. Slattery Contr. Co., 8 A D 2d 95). In particular, it failed to adequately instruct the jury with respect to the elements to be considered in determining whether or not the decedent was an invitee. However, in view of the uncontroverted facts concerning the occurrence and, concluding as we do that under any view of the evidence the decedent was an invitee as a matter of law so that his status presented no factual question for jury resolution, the deficiencies of the charge were of no consequence. Concur—• Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $147,244 unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The charge, as a whole, was much too general and did not sufficiently relate the applicable law to the facts of the case. It failed to “give the jury the guidance that the law requires” (O’Connor v. 595 Realty Assoc., 23 A D 2d 69, 74; Arroyo v. Judena Taxi, 20 A D 2d 888; Molnar v. Slattery Contr. Co., 8 A D 2d 95). In particular, it failed to adequately instruct the jury with respect to the elements to be considered in determining whether or not the decedent was an invitee. However, in view of the uncontroverted facts concerning the occurrence and, concluding as we do that under any view of the evidence the decedent was an invitee as a matter of law so that his status presented no factual question for jury resolution, the deficiencies of the charge were of no consequence. Concur—• Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 740, 263 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smiraldo-v-lashins-construction-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1965.