Tuthill v. deVries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuthill v. deVries

265 A.D. 881, 38 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6308

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 265 A.D. 881 (Tuthill v. deVries) 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

Tuthill v. deVries, 265 A.D. 881, 38 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial-court did not conform to the proper practice, indicated by this court on several occasions, which requires that a trial court, when setting aside a verdict of a jury, should indicate the grounds which moved the exercise of discretion in this regard so that there may be an intelligible review of the action of the court if one is sought. The conduct of the defendant’s trial counsel and its possible prejudicial effect on the result attained warranted the setting aside of the verdict in the interests of justice. (Cherry Creek Nat. Bank v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 207 App. Div. 787, 790; Summers Coal & Lumber Co., Inc., v. Bagshaw, 240 App. Div. 709; Passzehl v. Metropolitan Distributors, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1050.) Present — : Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

The trial-court did not conform to the proper practice, indicated by this court on several occasions, which requires that a trial court, when setting aside a verdict of a jury, should indicate the grounds which moved the exercise of discretion in this regard so that there may be an intelligible review of the action of the court if one is sought. The conduct of the defendant’s trial counsel and its possible prejudicial effect on the result attained warranted the setting aside of the verdict in the interests of justice. (Cherry Creek Nat. Bank v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 207 App. Div. 787, 790; Summers Coal & Lumber Co., Inc., v. Bagshaw, 240 App. Div. 709; Passzehl v. Metropolitan Distributors, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1050.) Present — : Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D. 881, 38 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuthill-v-devries-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack