Steinhauser v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinhauser v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.

42 A.D.2d 739, 345 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 739 (Steinhauser v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.) 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

Steinhauser v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 42 A.D.2d 739, 345 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated negligence actions (tried solely on plaintiff James F. Steinhauser’s cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries), both plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 14,1972, in favor of defendants against plaintiff Steinhauser, upon the trial court’s dismissal of said plaintiff’s complaint at the close of the evidence at a jury trial. Appeal by plaintiff Wallach’s Auto Rental, Inc., dismissed, without costs. The judgment does not contain a decretal provision adverse to said plaintiff. On the appeal by plaintiff Steinhauser, judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted between said plaintiff and defendants, with costs to abide the event. The appeal did not present questions of fact. In our opinion, the fact that plaintiff Steinhauser was an amnesiac was sufficient to require the presentment of his case to the jury (Schechter v. Kbanfer, 28 N Y 2d 228; Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 76). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated negligence actions (tried solely on plaintiff James F. Steinhauser’s cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries), both plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 14,1972, in favor of defendants against plaintiff Steinhauser, upon the trial court’s dismissal of said plaintiff’s complaint at the close of the evidence at a jury trial. Appeal by plaintiff Wallach’s Auto Rental, Inc., dismissed, without costs. The judgment does not contain a decretal provision adverse to said plaintiff. On the appeal by plaintiff Steinhauser, judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted between said plaintiff and defendants, with costs to abide the event. The appeal did not present questions of fact. In our opinion, the fact that plaintiff Steinhauser was an amnesiac was sufficient to require the presentment of his case to the jury (Schechter v. Kbanfer, 28 N Y 2d 228; Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 76). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 739, 345 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinhauser-v-socony-mobil-oil-co-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack