Sternstein v. " ITALIA"-SOCIETA PER AZIONI DI NAVIGAZIONE-GENOA
| Decision Date | 26 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 180,Docket 25745.,180 |
| Citation | 275 F.2d 502 |
| Parties | Frances E. STERNSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. "ITALIA"-SOCIETA PER AZIONI DI NAVIGAZIONE-GENOA, also known as Italian Line, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Louis R. Harolds, New York City (Standard, Weisberg, Harolds & Malament, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert Wang, New York City (Morgan J. Burke, Jr., William P. Larsen, and Dorsey & Burke, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and MADDEN, Judge, United States Court of Claims*.
At the close of the trial of this action to recover damages for personal injuries the doctor who was to have been subpoenaed and produced did not appear and the case was dismissed. Later findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed as required by F.R.Civ.P. Rule 52, 28 U.S.C.A. More than ten days after the docket entry of the dismissal but less than ten days after the filing of the findings plaintiff made a motion for a new trial and the motion was granted. Thereafter the order granting the new trial was vacated "as not timely made."
We need not decide whether it was too late to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b), which contains the ten day limitation. It is clear that a motion for a new trial under Rule 60(b) may be made "within a reasonable time," and the delay here was no more than a few days. The trial judge believed the interests of justice required a new trial and the record discloses that there was a proper basis for such belief. Rule 60(b) was not intended to deprive a trial judge of his discretionary power to direct a new trial whenever he considered such a course necessary to defeat injustice. As we find no abuse of such discretion, we vacate the order of April 3, 1959 and reinstate the order of January 20, 1959 granting the new trial. Accordingly, the case is remanded.
* Sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kossick v. United Fruit Co, 96
...as a patient in the United States Public Health Service Hospital. * * * That took care of the obligation to furnish 'cure.' * * *' (275 F.2d 502). With respect to the learned judges below, we think that is too narrow a view of the matter. It can as well be argued that the alleged contract r......
-
Weiss v. Hunna
...based on "newly discovered evidence" or on "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." See Sternstein v. "Italia", 275 F.2d 502 (2 Cir.1960); 6 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1953), at 3719. But once plaintiff had filed a notice of appeal, the district court wa......
-
United Medical Laboratories v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys.
...Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P. Certainly, I cannot find that the interests of justice require a rehearing. Sternstein v. "Italia"-Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazione-Genoa, 275 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1960). For that matter, Rule 60(b) is not intended to serve the same purposes as Rule 59. John E. Smith's ......
-
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co.
...there is sufficient reason to invoke the application of Rule 60(b) in the circumstances of this case. Sternstein v. "Italia"—Societa Per Azioni, 275 F.2d 502 (2nd Cir. 1960). Plaintiff urges that this Court's determination that the plaintiff's Old Ben trackage was an extension is erroneous ......