From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tripi v. Stillwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 29, 1964
22 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

October 29, 1964

Appeal from the Erie Trial Term.

Present — Bastow, J.P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.


Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The nonsuit was granted after defendant had rested without offering any evidence. The plaintiff was "entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn" from the evidence submitted by her ( Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N.Y. 584, 586; Michaels v. Gannett Co., 10 A.D.2d 417). Applying this principle the plaintiff established a prima facie case which required submission to the jury. Furthermore, plaintiff's motion to reopen and present additional proof, made as it was immediately after her counsel had informed the court that he rested and before any offer of proof by defendant, should have been granted. There was no showing of any prejudice to defendant and, therefore, the denial of this motion was an improvident exercise of the court's discretion.


Summaries of

Tripi v. Stillwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 29, 1964
22 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Tripi v. Stillwell

Case Details

Full title:SANTINA TRIPI, Appellant, v. ELAINE STILLWELL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 29, 1964

Citations

22 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Singer v. Long Island Lighting Company

It is well settled that in order to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, a defendant movant has the…

Salzman v. Rosell

Under the circumstances, it is our view that the request to reopen should have been granted at that time,…