Toner v. Arnold Constable

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Toner v. Arnold Constable

61 Misc. 2d 591, 307 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1002

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 11, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 61 Misc. 2d 591 (Toner v. Arnold Constable) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Toner v. Arnold Constable, 61 Misc. 2d 591, 307 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We believe it was a proper exercise of discretion, in setting aside the verdict in plaintiff’s favor, to order a new trial rather than dismiss the complaint, and thus afford plaintiff “ the opportunity — to demonstrate the causal connection between the negligence found and the injury sustained.” This was the course adopted in Ravo v. Lido (17 A D 2d 476). Since, however, the liability of defendant (Sophia), if so established on a new trial, would not necessarily exclude liability over of the third-party defendant Ozon Products, Inc. (Ozon) on Sophia’s third-party complaint against Ozon, it was error not to set aside the verdict in its entirety and to order a new trial as to all parties.

[592]*592The order should be modified to the extent of setting aside the verdict in its entirety and ordering a new trial, with $10 costs to plaintiff against defendant and with $10 costs to abide the event to defendant third-party plaintiff against third-party defendant.

Concur — Steeit, J. P., Quinn and Hoestadter, JJ.

Order modified, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

We believe it was a proper exercise of discretion, in setting aside the verdict in plaintiff’s favor, to order a new trial rather than dismiss the complaint, and thus afford plaintiff “ the opportunity — to demonstrate the causal connection between the negligence found and the injury sustained.” This was the course adopted in Ravo v. Lido (17 A D 2d 476). Since, however, the liability of defendant (Sophia), if so established on a new trial, would not necessarily exclude liability over of the third-party defendant Ozon Products, Inc. (Ozon) on Sophia’s third-party complaint against Ozon, it was error not to set aside the verdict in its entirety and to order a new trial as to all parties.

[592]*592The order should be modified to the extent of setting aside the verdict in its entirety and ordering a new trial, with $10 costs to plaintiff against defendant and with $10 costs to abide the event to defendant third-party plaintiff against third-party defendant.

Concur — Steeit, J. P., Quinn and Hoestadter, JJ.

Order modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Misc. 2d 591, 307 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toner-v-arnold-constable-nyappterm-1969.