From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HEY v. HUSS

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Dec 8, 1958
16 Misc. 2d 672 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

December 8, 1958

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, Queens County, J. IRWIN SHAPIRO, J.

Gross Regan ( Asher Marcus of counsel), for appellant.

Samuel S. Friedman and Avrum J. Schrager for respondents.


While the court in the exercise of discretion might set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, it could not direct a verdict but should have ordered a new trial. ( Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N.Y. 241, 245; Imbrey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 286 N.Y. 434.) Judgment upon the facts must be the judgment of the jury and not that of another tribunal. ( Loewinthal v. Le Vine, 299 N.Y. 372, 377.)

The order of the City Court, Queens County, setting aside the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff and dismissing the complaint on the merits, and ordering a new trial of the defendant's counterclaim, should be modified on the law and facts by directing that there be a new trial of the entire case, and as so modified, affirmed with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

PETTE and BROWN, JJ., concur. HART, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Order modified, etc.


Summaries of

HEY v. HUSS

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Dec 8, 1958
16 Misc. 2d 672 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

HEY v. HUSS

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL L. HEY, Appellant, v. ABRAHAM HUSS et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Dec 8, 1958

Citations

16 Misc. 2d 672 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
189 N.Y.S.2d 51

Citing Cases

Farber v. Jewish Commun. Ctr., Flatbush

The best indication that they were not regarded as important at the time they were uttered is that…