Zavaro v. Mann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zavaro v. Mann

26 A.D.2d 692, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3617

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 692 (Zavaro v. Mann) 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

Zavaro v. Mann, 26 A.D.2d 692, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In two negligence actions (which were tried jointly), defendant Zavaro in the second above-entitled action -appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 23, 1964 on a jury verdict as was in favor of the pl-aintiff Cora E. Mann in both her individual and fiduciary capacities. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law; the second above-entitled action is severed, and a new trial thereof directed, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the receipt of the expert testimony constituted reversible error (see Lopez v. Yannotti, 24 A D 2d 758; Lombard v. Dobson, 16 A D 2d 1031; Mercadante v. Barry Transp. Co., 23 A D 2d 653). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Rabin, J., concurs in reversal of the judgment, insofar as appealed from, and the direction of a new trial on the ground stated in the memorandum of the majority, and on the additional ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

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

In two negligence actions (which were tried jointly), defendant Zavaro in the second above-entitled action -appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 23, 1964 on a jury verdict as was in favor of the pl-aintiff Cora E. Mann in both her individual and fiduciary capacities. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law; the second above-entitled action is severed, and a new trial thereof directed, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the receipt of the expert testimony constituted reversible error (see Lopez v. Yannotti, 24 A D 2d 758; Lombard v. Dobson, 16 A D 2d 1031; Mercadante v. Barry Transp. Co., 23 A D 2d 653). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Rabin, J., concurs in reversal of the judgment, insofar as appealed from, and the direction of a new trial on the ground stated in the memorandum of the majority, and on the additional ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 692, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zavaro-v-mann-nyappdiv-1966.