Spitzer v. Schmitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spitzer v. Schmitt

249 A.D. 783, 292 N.Y.S. 64, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5995

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 783 (Spitzer v. Schmitt) 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

Spitzer v. Schmitt, 249 A.D. 783, 292 N.Y.S. 64, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

On appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment in favor of the defendants in an action for malpractice, judgment reversed on the law as to defendant Frederick Schmitt, and on the law and the facts as to defendant Flamm, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We are of opinion that a prima fade case of negligence was made out by the plaintiffs as against defendant Schmitt, [784]*784as against whom the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. As to defendant Flamm, in whose favor the jury rendered a verdict, we are of opinion that the interjections of the learned trial judge and his characterizations of the issue and the parties in his charge deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

On appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment in favor of the defendants in an action for malpractice, judgment reversed on the law as to defendant Frederick Schmitt, and on the law and the facts as to defendant Flamm, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We are of opinion that a prima fade case of negligence was made out by the plaintiffs as against defendant Schmitt, [784]*784as against whom the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. As to defendant Flamm, in whose favor the jury rendered a verdict, we are of opinion that the interjections of the learned trial judge and his characterizations of the issue and the parties in his charge deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 783, 292 N.Y.S. 64, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spitzer-v-schmitt-nyappdiv-1936.