Zobre v. Schuttig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zobre v. Schuttig

41 A.D.2d 573, 339 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 573 (Zobre v. Schuttig) 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

Zobre v. Schuttig, 41 A.D.2d 573, 339 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered July 22, 1970 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs. During the trial of this negligence action, the jury requested that the court allow them to rehear that portion of the testimony of the medical expert, Dr. Ruch, which related to permanency. This testimony was vague and confusing and supports the conclusion that the jury was indeed confused. The court should not have denied the jury’s request which, in our view, constituted prejudicial error, and in the interest of justice the verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted. (Kerner v. Surface Transp. Corp. of N. 7., 266 App. Div. 356, affd. 293 H. Y. 881.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial ordered. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Cooke, Sweeney and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered July 22, 1970 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs. During the trial of this negligence action, the jury requested that the court allow them to rehear that portion of the testimony of the medical expert, Dr. Ruch, which related to permanency. This testimony was vague and confusing and supports the conclusion that the jury was indeed confused. The court should not have denied the jury’s request which, in our view, constituted prejudicial error, and in the interest of justice the verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted. (Kerner v. Surface Transp. Corp. of N. 7., 266 App. Div. 356, affd. 293 H. Y. 881.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial ordered. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Cooke, Sweeney and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 573, 339 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zobre-v-schuttig-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack