Tokarski v. Siedlikowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tokarski v. Siedlikowski

3 A.D.2d 646, 158 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3481

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 646 (Tokarski v. Siedlikowski) 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

Tokarski v. Siedlikowski, 3 A.D.2d 646, 158 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of plaintiff Tokarski against defendant Hill affirmed, with costs; order modified by striking therefrom the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint and in place thereof granting a new trial, and as modified affirmed, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Judgment and order in favor of defendant Hill against plaintiff Siedlikowski in the second action reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (In consolidated automobile negligence actions, appeal by defendant Hill from a' judgment of Erie Trial Term for plaintiff and against said defendant; also appeal by plaintiff Tokarski from an order of said Trial Term, setting aside the verdict of the jury and that part of the judgment in favor of plaintiff which was against defendant Siedlikowski and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as to said defendant; also appeal by plaintiff Siedlikowski from a judgment for defendant Hill and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present ■—McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of plaintiff Tokarski against defendant Hill affirmed, with costs; order modified by striking therefrom the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint and in place thereof granting a new trial, and as modified affirmed, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Judgment and order in favor of defendant Hill against plaintiff Siedlikowski in the second action reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (In consolidated automobile negligence actions, appeal by defendant Hill from a' judgment of Erie Trial Term for plaintiff and against said defendant; also appeal by plaintiff Tokarski from an order of said Trial Term, setting aside the verdict of the jury and that part of the judgment in favor of plaintiff which was against defendant Siedlikowski and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as to said defendant; also appeal by plaintiff Siedlikowski from a judgment for defendant Hill and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present ■—McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 646, 158 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tokarski-v-siedlikowski-nyappdiv-1956.