Villanti v. Rusakowicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villanti v. Rusakowicz

57 A.D.2d 616, 393 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11627

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

DecidedApril 25, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 616 (Villanti v. Rusakowicz) 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

Villanti v. Rusakowicz, 57 A.D.2d 616, 393 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the [617]*617Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 24, 1976, which is in favor of the defendant-respondent and against him, following a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No fact issues were presented on this appeal. The trial court improperly indicated, in its charge to the jury, that it did not believe that .the witness who testified on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant was telling the truth. In our opinion, this deprived the plaintiff of his right to a fair trial. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the [617]*617Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 24, 1976, which is in favor of the defendant-respondent and against him, following a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No fact issues were presented on this appeal. The trial court improperly indicated, in its charge to the jury, that it did not believe that .the witness who testified on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant was telling the truth. In our opinion, this deprived the plaintiff of his right to a fair trial. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 616, 393 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villanti-v-rusakowicz-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack