Smith v. New York Dugan Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. New York Dugan Bros.

254 A.D. 743, 3 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432

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

DecidedMay 2, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 743 (Smith v. New York Dugan Bros.) 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

Smith v. New York Dugan Bros., 254 A.D. 743, 3 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Actions for damages for personal injuries and for expenses and loss of services as a consequence of the infant plaintiff’s being run over by an automobile owned by the corporate defendant and operated by the individual defendant while the truck was being backed out of the driveway adjoining the home of the infant plaintiff. Judgment for the defendants unanimously affirmed, with costs. While the conduct of defendants’ counsel was not above criticism, particularly in reference to the making of innumerable requests to charge, some of which were repetitious and others irrelevant, nevertheless the evidence presented a square issue of fact for the jury, the resolving of which, either for the plaintiffs or the defendants, could not fairly be disturbed on appeal. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs in result.

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

Actions for damages for personal injuries and for expenses and loss of services as a consequence of the infant plaintiff’s being run over by an automobile owned by the corporate defendant and operated by the individual defendant while the truck was being backed out of the driveway adjoining the home of the infant plaintiff. Judgment for the defendants unanimously affirmed, with costs. While the conduct of defendants’ counsel was not above criticism, particularly in reference to the making of innumerable requests to charge, some of which were repetitious and others irrelevant, nevertheless the evidence presented a square issue of fact for the jury, the resolving of which, either for the plaintiffs or the defendants, could not fairly be disturbed on appeal. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 743, 3 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-new-york-dugan-bros-nyappdiv-1938.