Sturckler v. John Lux & Justice Motor Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sturckler v. John Lux & Justice Motor Corp.

239 A.D. 757

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 757 (Sturckler v. John Lux & Justice Motor 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

Sturckler v. John Lux & Justice Motor Corp., 239 A.D. 757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We find that the learned trial court was not required to charge the request specified as the second ground for setting aside the judgments — for the reason that the request omits considerations essential to the conclusion sought. In view of the preponderance of the evidence favoring a finding of no negligence in defendant Lux and taking into account the whole charge, we conclude that the technical error first specified as a reason for granting a new trial was not of sufficient materiality to warrant the action taken. Furthermore, this portion of the charge was not the subject of an exception or a request to charge. All concur. Order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and judgment reinstated. [See post, p. 765.]

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

Per Curiam.

We find that the learned trial court was not required to charge the request specified as the second ground for setting aside the judgments — for the reason that the request omits considerations essential to the conclusion sought. In view of the preponderance of the evidence favoring a finding of no negligence in defendant Lux and taking into account the whole charge, we conclude that the technical error first specified as a reason for granting a new trial was not of sufficient materiality to warrant the action taken. Furthermore, this portion of the charge was not the subject of an exception or a request to charge. All concur. Order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and judgment reinstated. [See post, p. 765.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturckler-v-john-lux-justice-motor-corp-nyappdiv-1933.