Young v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Young v. City of New York

254 A.D. 881, 5 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8143

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

DecidedJune 10, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 881 (Young 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

Young v. City of New York, 254 A.D. 881, 5 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

'Actions were brought by the respective plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by them because of the alleged unsafe condition of one of the city’s highways. The actions were tried together and separate verdicts rendered in favor of plaintiffs. From the judgments entered thereon and from the order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Judgments and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The matter upon which the city bases its complaint concerning the conduct of a juror was [882]*882called to the attention of the city during the trial. It had opportunity to act then but failed to do so. It should not be heard to complain now. Present —- Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

'Actions were brought by the respective plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by them because of the alleged unsafe condition of one of the city’s highways. The actions were tried together and separate verdicts rendered in favor of plaintiffs. From the judgments entered thereon and from the order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Judgments and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The matter upon which the city bases its complaint concerning the conduct of a juror was [882]*882called to the attention of the city during the trial. It had opportunity to act then but failed to do so. It should not be heard to complain now. Present —- Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 881, 5 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1938.