Swift v. Rusin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swift v. Rusin

54 A.D.2d 589, 387 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 589 (Swift v. Rusin) 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

Swift v. Rusin, 54 A.D.2d 589, 387 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 20, 1975, as is in favor of defendant Twentieth and Fifth Garage, Inc., and against him, after a jury trial. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and, as between plaintiff and defendant Twentieth and Fifth Garage, Inc., action severed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. The testimony of plaintiff, that he received permission to enter upon the premises, was sufficient to make out a prima facie case, notwithstanding the preponderating evidence to the contrary. The trial court’s charge to the jury that plaintiff was a trespasser as a matter of law was therefore improper and that question is now irrelevant in view of the determination by the Court of Appeals in Basso v Miller (40 NY2d 233). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 20, 1975, as is in favor of defendant Twentieth and Fifth Garage, Inc., and against him, after a jury trial. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and, as between plaintiff and defendant Twentieth and Fifth Garage, Inc., action severed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. The testimony of plaintiff, that he received permission to enter upon the premises, was sufficient to make out a prima facie case, notwithstanding the preponderating evidence to the contrary. The trial court’s charge to the jury that plaintiff was a trespasser as a matter of law was therefore improper and that question is now irrelevant in view of the determination by the Court of Appeals in Basso v Miller (40 NY2d 233). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 589, 387 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-v-rusin-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack