Williams v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. City of New York

48 A.D.2d 611, 367 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9588

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

DecidedMay 1, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 611 (Williams v. City of New York) 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. City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 611, 367 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 9, 1974, dismissing the complaint in- this perenal injury action at the close of defendant’s case, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed, with $60 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The testimony of plaintiff and his eyewitness was sufficient to make out a prima facie case, requiring submission thereof to the jury. The trial court expressed its belief in the truthfulness of defendant’s witness, rather than in the contrary testimony offered by plaintiff and indicated its view that the accident could not have happened "without him [plaintiff] being contributorily negligent”. The trial court, in passing upon these and other disputed issues in the case, "usurped the jury’s right to resolve the * * * question^] of fact presented”. (Hallman v City of New York, 47 AD2d 896). Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, L”piano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 9, 1974, dismissing the complaint in- this perenal injury action at the close of defendant’s case, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed, with $60 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The testimony of plaintiff and his eyewitness was sufficient to make out a prima facie case, requiring submission thereof to the jury. The trial court expressed its belief in the truthfulness of defendant’s witness, rather than in the contrary testimony offered by plaintiff and indicated its view that the accident could not have happened "without him [plaintiff] being contributorily negligent”. The trial court, in passing upon these and other disputed issues in the case, "usurped the jury’s right to resolve the * * * question^] of fact presented”. (Hallman v City of New York, 47 AD2d 896). Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, L”piano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 611, 367 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack