Tomaschoff v. Stapleton Drug Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomaschoff v. Stapleton Drug Co.

263 A.D. 728, 30 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4735

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 728 (Tomaschoff v. Stapleton Drug 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

Tomaschoff v. Stapleton Drug Co., 263 A.D. 728, 30 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision, judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff and order denying appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In this court’s opinion, the instructions to the jury were inadequate. In addition, the jury should have been instructed to disregard the testimony which was struck out at folio 151 of the record. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Adel, JJ., concur; Carswell and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the record presented an issue of fact for determination by the jury.

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

In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision, judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff and order denying appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In this court’s opinion, the instructions to the jury were inadequate. In addition, the jury should have been instructed to disregard the testimony which was struck out at folio 151 of the record. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Adel, JJ., concur; Carswell and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the record presented an issue of fact for determination by the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 728, 30 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomaschoff-v-stapleton-drug-co-nyappdiv-1941.