Squillante v. Los Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Squillante v. Los Cab Corp.

23 A.D.2d 656, 257 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4571

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 656 (Squillante v. Los Cab Corp.) 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

Squillante v. Los Cab Corp., 23 A.D.2d 656, 257 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of defendants unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellants. After plaintiffs rested in this personal injury action tried before a jury, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure of a prima facie ease. When the motion w]as denied defendants rested and both sides moved for a directed verdict. The count then directed a verdict in favor of defendants on the ground that a verdict by the jury in favor of plaintiff would have had to be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence. By denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court recognized, in our opinion properly, that the evidence was sufficient to require submission of the issues to the jury. A prima facie ease had clearly been presented by plaintiffs. Direction of a verdict solely on weight of evidence grounds was therefore error (Davis v. Garisto Constr. Corp., 19 A D 2d 518), stemming, it would appear, from the mistaken view that a direction on such grounds is authorized where the motion for a directed verdict has been made by all parties (see CPLR 4401; McTiernan v. City of Little Falls, 284 App. Div. 79). Concur — Boitein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of defendants unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellants. After plaintiffs rested in this personal injury action tried before a jury, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure of a prima facie ease. When the motion w]as denied defendants rested and both sides moved for a directed verdict. The count then directed a verdict in favor of defendants on the ground that a verdict by the jury in favor of plaintiff would have had to be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence. By denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court recognized, in our opinion properly, that the evidence was sufficient to require submission of the issues to the jury. A prima facie ease had clearly been presented by plaintiffs. Direction of a verdict solely on weight of evidence grounds was therefore error (Davis v. Garisto Constr. Corp., 19 A D 2d 518), stemming, it would appear, from the mistaken view that a direction on such grounds is authorized where the motion for a directed verdict has been made by all parties (see CPLR 4401; McTiernan v. City of Little Falls, 284 App. Div. 79). Concur — Boitein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 656, 257 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/squillante-v-los-cab-corp-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack