Weisz v. Doris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weisz v. Doris

243 A.D. 726, 277 N.Y.S. 994

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 726 (Weisz v. Doris) 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

Weisz v. Doris, 243 A.D. 726, 277 N.Y.S. 994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

■— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by infant plaintiff as the result of a collision between defendant’s car and the car in which the infant plaintiff was a passenger, order setting aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff and granting a new trial affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur; Tompkins and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and to reinstate the verdict, with the following memorandum: There was ample evidence to support the verdict. It was set aside as contrary to the evidence and because of prejudicial remarks made during the trial. What the remarks were does not appear. No exception was taken to any part [727]*727of plaintiff’s summation, nor to any part of the court’s charge, and no request to charge was made. Ho objection was made and no exception was taken to any statement of plaintiff’s counsel.

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

■— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by infant plaintiff as the result of a collision between defendant’s car and the car in which the infant plaintiff was a passenger, order setting aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff and granting a new trial affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur; Tompkins and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and to reinstate the verdict, with the following memorandum: There was ample evidence to support the verdict. It was set aside as contrary to the evidence and because of prejudicial remarks made during the trial. What the remarks were does not appear. No exception was taken to any part [727]*727of plaintiff’s summation, nor to any part of the court’s charge, and no request to charge was made. Ho objection was made and no exception was taken to any statement of plaintiff’s counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 726, 277 N.Y.S. 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weisz-v-doris-nyappdiv-1935.