Williams v. Burkland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Burkland

49 A.D.2d 1001, 374 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11339

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 1001 (Williams v. Burkland) 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

Williams v. Burkland, 49 A.D.2d 1001, 374 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The main contentions of appellants on this appeal are the alleged prejudicial errors in the trial court’s charge in its summary of the facts and its refusal of appellants’ various requests to charge. The repeated emphasis by the trial court in its charge and recharge, concerning the jury’s exclusive function to determine the facts from their recollection of the evidence, obviated any possible prejudice in the instant case. Nor was there error in the trial court’s rejection of appellants’ various requests to charge. The remaining contentions of appellants, concerning insufficiency of evidence, are also without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court in automobile negligence action; and appeal from order denying motion to set aside verdict.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Mahoney, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The main contentions of appellants on this appeal are the alleged prejudicial errors in the trial court’s charge in its summary of the facts and its refusal of appellants’ various requests to charge. The repeated emphasis by the trial court in its charge and recharge, concerning the jury’s exclusive function to determine the facts from their recollection of the evidence, obviated any possible prejudice in the instant case. Nor was there error in the trial court’s rejection of appellants’ various requests to charge. The remaining contentions of appellants, concerning insufficiency of evidence, are also without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court in automobile negligence action; and appeal from order denying motion to set aside verdict.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Mahoney, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 1001, 374 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-burkland-nyappdiv-1975.