Spurling v. S & M Caterers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spurling v. S & M Caterers, Inc.

31 A.D.2d 660, 297 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2606

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 660 (Spurling v. S & M Caterers, 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

Spurling v. S & M Caterers, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 660, 297 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Count, Kings County, dated July 27, 1966, which granted defendant’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor and to dismiss the complaint, and (2) a judgment of said court entered October 3, 1966 upon said order. Order modified, on the law, by striking out all the decretal provisions therein other than that which set aside the verdict and by adding thereto a provision granting a new trial. As so modified, order affirmed, and judgment reversed, on the law, with costs to abide the event of the new trial. The findings of fact below are not affirmed. In our opinion, the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. However, the evidence was such as to entitle plaintiff to a new trial, not such as to require dismissal of the complaint. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Count, Kings County, dated July 27, 1966, which granted defendant’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor and to dismiss the complaint, and (2) a judgment of said court entered October 3, 1966 upon said order. Order modified, on the law, by striking out all the decretal provisions therein other than that which set aside the verdict and by adding thereto a provision granting a new trial. As so modified, order affirmed, and judgment reversed, on the law, with costs to abide the event of the new trial. The findings of fact below are not affirmed. In our opinion, the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. However, the evidence was such as to entitle plaintiff to a new trial, not such as to require dismissal of the complaint. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 660, 297 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spurling-v-s-m-caterers-inc-nyappdiv-1968.