Varano v. Cam Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varano v. Cam Construction Co.

27 A.D.2d 563, 277 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2841

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 563 (Varano v. Cam Construction 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

Varano v. Cam Construction Co., 27 A.D.2d 563, 277 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 9, 1966, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., dis[564]*564sents and votes to reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from and to grant a new trial as against appellant, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the present record discloses that plaintiff failed to prove, by a fair preponderance of the circumstantial evidence adduced, the theory of liability upon which this action was tried and submitted to the jury. The appellant’s employees (bricklayers) finished their work and left the premises at least 3 or 4 days prior to the accident and the jury’s implicit finding that the brick which struck the plaintiff was left by appellant’s employees could only be based upon the impermissible rationalization of inference upon inference (McCabe v. Queensboro Farm Prods., 21 A D 2d 675).

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 9, 1966, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., dis[564]*564sents and votes to reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from and to grant a new trial as against appellant, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the present record discloses that plaintiff failed to prove, by a fair preponderance of the circumstantial evidence adduced, the theory of liability upon which this action was tried and submitted to the jury. The appellant’s employees (bricklayers) finished their work and left the premises at least 3 or 4 days prior to the accident and the jury’s implicit finding that the brick which struck the plaintiff was left by appellant’s employees could only be based upon the impermissible rationalization of inference upon inference (McCabe v. Queensboro Farm Prods., 21 A D 2d 675).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 563, 277 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varano-v-cam-construction-co-nyappdiv-1966.