Zeitchick v. Tracy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeitchick v. Tracy

37 A.D.2d 616, 323 N.Y.S.2d 470

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

DecidedJune 21, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 616 (Zeitchick v. Tracy) 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

Zeitchick v. Tracy, 37 A.D.2d 616, 323 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 28, 1970, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the ease in a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The questions of fact have not been considered. In our opinion it was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of the entire case. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the aspect most favorable to plaintiff and giving him the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn therefrom (see Andersen v. Bee Line, 1 N Y 2d 169, 172), we find that the questions of respondent’s negligence and appellant’s freedom from contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. We further find that the testimony of appellant was not incredible as a matter of law (cf. Dolfini, v. Erie R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 1, 4; Matter of Harriot, 145 N. Y. 540, 546). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 28, 1970, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the ease in a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The questions of fact have not been considered. In our opinion it was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of the entire case. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the aspect most favorable to plaintiff and giving him the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn therefrom (see Andersen v. Bee Line, 1 N Y 2d 169, 172), we find that the questions of respondent’s negligence and appellant’s freedom from contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. We further find that the testimony of appellant was not incredible as a matter of law (cf. Dolfini, v. Erie R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 1, 4; Matter of Harriot, 145 N. Y. 540, 546). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 616, 323 N.Y.S.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeitchick-v-tracy-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack