From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kroemer v. Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 13, 1936
247 App. Div. 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Opinion

March 13, 1936.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Clarence E. Mellen of counsel [ John J. Kirwan, attorney], for the appellant.

Morris Carl Schneidkraut of counsel [ Morris Carl Schneidkraut and Montague T. Alterman, attorneys], for the respondent Tessie Kroemer, as administratrix, etc. Benjamin Antin of counsel [ Emanuel M. Ostrow with him on the brief], for the respondent Mae Gonsalves.

Myron Wisoff of counsel [ William S. Butler with him on the brief; Philip Reich, attorney], for the respondent James M. Lee.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., GLENNON, UNTERMYER, DORE and COHN, JJ.


We believe it unnecessary to review the facts out of which this litigation arose, other than to state that it involved a collision between a passenger car and defendant-appellant's truck.

While a question of fact was presented for the jury to determine, we cannot permit the judgment to stand because we are of the opinion that the charge was neither adequate nor sufficient to enable the jury to reach an intelligent conclusion. Some abstract legal principles were stated, but practically no reference was made to the evidence, although the issues were closely contested and considerable testimony was taken during the course of the trial which lasted several days.

Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.


Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.


Summaries of

Kroemer v. Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 13, 1936
247 App. Div. 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Case details for

Kroemer v. Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TESSIE KROEMER, as Administratrix, etc., of ARNOLD KROEMER, Deceased, and…

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

Date published: Mar 13, 1936

Citations

247 App. Div. 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
286 N.Y.S. 207

Citing Cases

Zipay v. Benson

The failure, in charging the jury, to relate general rules of law to specific facts in a negligence action…

Merkling v. Ford Motor Co.

The rule which governed the movements of the two vehicles at this street intersection was not clearly stated…