From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Domino v. Mercurio

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 10, 1963
193 N.E.2d 893 (N.Y. 1963)

Opinion

Argued October 1, 1963

Decided October 10, 1963

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, JACOB TICK, J.

Elmer S. Stengel, Corporation Counsel ( John P. Egan of counsel), for appellants.

Philip H. Magner, Jr., for respondent.


Judgment affirmed, with costs. The existence of issues of fact with respect to negligence was conceded by the failure of defendants to move to dismiss at the conclusion of the case. The Appellate Division, in the exercise of its power to reverse in the interests of justice, examined the issue of whether defendant Board of Education was liable in any event. This court, however, cannot reach that issue since no exception was taken to the trial court's submission of that issue to the jury.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, FOSTER and SCILEPPI.


Summaries of

Domino v. Mercurio

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 10, 1963
193 N.E.2d 893 (N.Y. 1963)
Case details for

Domino v. Mercurio

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DOMINO, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of JOSEPH DOMINO, an…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 10, 1963

Citations

193 N.E.2d 893 (N.Y. 1963)
193 N.E.2d 893
244 N.Y.S.2d 69

Citing Cases

Murray v. Watervliet City School District

We now affirm. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer may be held vicariously liable for a…

Hecker v. State

The issue decided by the Appellate Division — whether the area in which plaintiff suffered his injury was a…