Woest v. Shor's Catering Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woest v. Shor's Catering Corp.

31 A.D.2d 660, 296 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 660 (Woest v. Shor's Catering Corp.) 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

Woest v. Shor's Catering Corp., 31 A.D.2d 660, 296 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment of the ¡Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 26, 1967, reversed, on the law, and new trial granted as against appellant, Hewlett Catering 'Corp., without costs. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the trial court’s comments in refusing appellant’s request to charge relative to the tool box improperly removed from the jury’s consideration the presence of the tool box, which the jury could have taken into account in determining whether the accident happened in the manner claimed by plaintiff (Piwowarski v. Cornwell, 273 N. Y. 226, 229; Zizzi v. Evans, 3 A D 2d 644; Mercatante v. City of New York, 286 App. Div. 265). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

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

— Judgment of the ¡Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 26, 1967, reversed, on the law, and new trial granted as against appellant, Hewlett Catering 'Corp., without costs. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the trial court’s comments in refusing appellant’s request to charge relative to the tool box improperly removed from the jury’s consideration the presence of the tool box, which the jury could have taken into account in determining whether the accident happened in the manner claimed by plaintiff (Piwowarski v. Cornwell, 273 N. Y. 226, 229; Zizzi v. Evans, 3 A D 2d 644; Mercatante v. City of New York, 286 App. Div. 265). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 660, 296 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woest-v-shors-catering-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack