Whipple v. Serafini Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whipple v. Serafini Construction Co.

263 A.D. 760, 30 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4844

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 760 (Whipple v. Serafini 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

Whipple v. Serafini Construction Co., 263 A.D. 760, 30 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant jrgon a contract and for the rental of machinery. The contract was for certain work upon a State road job. The claim of the appellant is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. The judgment was rendered upon conflicting evidence which was submitted to the jury for their determination upon a fair charge by the court to which no exceptions were taken. It was a plain question of fact and this court has no authority to substitute its judgment for the verdict of the jury which was substantiated by the facts. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan, Schenek and Foster, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant jrgon a contract and for the rental of machinery. The contract was for certain work upon a State road job. The claim of the appellant is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. The judgment was rendered upon conflicting evidence which was submitted to the jury for their determination upon a fair charge by the court to which no exceptions were taken. It was a plain question of fact and this court has no authority to substitute its judgment for the verdict of the jury which was substantiated by the facts. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan, Schenek and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 760, 30 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whipple-v-serafini-construction-co-nyappdiv-1941.