Szuminski v. International Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szuminski v. International Railway Co.

244 A.D. 884

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

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 884 (Szuminski v. International Railway 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

Szuminski v. International Railway Co., 244 A.D. 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and' disbursements, and verdict reinstated. The record discloses no adequate reason for setting aside the verdict. All concur, except Sears, P. J., who dissents and votes for affirmance on the ground that on the poll of the jury the answers of the jurors were ambiguous. It would have been better had the trial justice required definite answers, but inasmuch as he did not do so, I am of the opinion that a situation was presented calling for the exercise of sound discretion on the part of the justice presiding and in my opinion this discretion was not abused. (The order set aside the verdict for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and' disbursements, and verdict reinstated. The record discloses no adequate reason for setting aside the verdict. All concur, except Sears, P. J., who dissents and votes for affirmance on the ground that on the poll of the jury the answers of the jurors were ambiguous. It would have been better had the trial justice required definite answers, but inasmuch as he did not do so, I am of the opinion that a situation was presented calling for the exercise of sound discretion on the part of the justice presiding and in my opinion this discretion was not abused. (The order set aside the verdict for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szuminski-v-international-railway-co-nyappdiv-1935.