Stafford v. Pierson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stafford v. Pierson

41 A.D.2d 808, 337 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2946

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 808 (Stafford v. Pierson) 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

Stafford v. Pierson, 41 A.D.2d 808, 337 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a personal injury negligence action, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1971, as is against her and in favor of defendant the City of New York, upon the trial court’s decision setting aside a jury verdict [809]*809for plaintiff against said defendant and directing a verdict in favor of said defendant against plaintiff. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, verdict against defendant the City of New York reinstated and case remitted to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Taking, as we must, the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff and-giving her the benefit of every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn therefrom (see Osipoff v. City of New York, 286 N. Y. 422, 425), we find that she showed facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant city could reasonably be inferred. This created a question of fact and consequently it was error to set aside the verdict in her favor against the city and to dismiss the complaint as to it (see Consalvo v. Grosso, 35 A D 2d 791, 792). The verdict should therefore be reinstated and plaintiff should be granted judgment thereon against the city. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro. Gulotta, Christ and Brennan JJ., concur.

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

In a personal injury negligence action, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1971, as is against her and in favor of defendant the City of New York, upon the trial court’s decision setting aside a jury verdict [809]*809for plaintiff against said defendant and directing a verdict in favor of said defendant against plaintiff. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, verdict against defendant the City of New York reinstated and case remitted to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Taking, as we must, the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff and-giving her the benefit of every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn therefrom (see Osipoff v. City of New York, 286 N. Y. 422, 425), we find that she showed facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant city could reasonably be inferred. This created a question of fact and consequently it was error to set aside the verdict in her favor against the city and to dismiss the complaint as to it (see Consalvo v. Grosso, 35 A D 2d 791, 792). The verdict should therefore be reinstated and plaintiff should be granted judgment thereon against the city. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro. Gulotta, Christ and Brennan JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 808, 337 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stafford-v-pierson-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack