Taylor v. Teves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Teves

243 A.D. 567

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 567 (Taylor v. Teves) 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

Taylor v. Teves, 243 A.D. 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a verdict for the defendant, based on a collision between the plaintiff boy, a pedestrian, and the car operated by defendant, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, verdict reinstated and judgment [568]*568directed, to be entered thereon, with costs. The court set aside the verdict on an erroneous statement of the evidence. It did so in violation of the frequently stated rule in respect of a defendant’s verdict in a tort action as compared with a plaintiff’s verdict in a tort action. That rule has been reiterated frequently by this court. (Seltzer v. Coney Island & Gravesend Ry. Co., 237 App. Div. 854; Solkey v. Beyer. 238 id. 809; Scheuerman v. Knapp Coal Co., Inc., Id. 874; Voyes v. Kane, 240 id. 710.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a verdict for the defendant, based on a collision between the plaintiff boy, a pedestrian, and the car operated by defendant, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, verdict reinstated and judgment [568]*568directed, to be entered thereon, with costs. The court set aside the verdict on an erroneous statement of the evidence. It did so in violation of the frequently stated rule in respect of a defendant’s verdict in a tort action as compared with a plaintiff’s verdict in a tort action. That rule has been reiterated frequently by this court. (Seltzer v. Coney Island & Gravesend Ry. Co., 237 App. Div. 854; Solkey v. Beyer. 238 id. 809; Scheuerman v. Knapp Coal Co., Inc., Id. 874; Voyes v. Kane, 240 id. 710.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-teves-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack