Vallone v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vallone v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 984

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 984 (Vallone v. City of New York) 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

Vallone v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by plaintiff wife to recover damages for personal injuries, and by her husband for expenses and loss of services, due to plaintiff wife falling while alighting from a trolley ear. Judgment, entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs. In this negligence action, after a concededly “perfectly good” charge, the trial court fell into error by granting the defendant’s request to charge “that if the jury is in doubt as to the exact way in which this accident occurred, that under the circumstances they must find for the defendant.” In the absence of an exception or further request to charge, the court was justified in believing that the explanatory statement made immediately thereafter, amplifying and explaining the “ doubt ” as that word was used in the charge, as requested, was satisfactory. Present — Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ.

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

Action by plaintiff wife to recover damages for personal injuries, and by her husband for expenses and loss of services, due to plaintiff wife falling while alighting from a trolley ear. Judgment, entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs. In this negligence action, after a concededly “perfectly good” charge, the trial court fell into error by granting the defendant’s request to charge “that if the jury is in doubt as to the exact way in which this accident occurred, that under the circumstances they must find for the defendant.” In the absence of an exception or further request to charge, the court was justified in believing that the explanatory statement made immediately thereafter, amplifying and explaining the “ doubt ” as that word was used in the charge, as requested, was satisfactory. Present — Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vallone-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1947.