Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 2,1,2 |
| Citation | 489 N.Y.S.2d 580,111 A.D.2d 366 |
| Parties | David DOLITSKY, Respondent, v. BAY ISLE OIL CO., INC., Appellant (Action). David DOLITSKY, Respondent, v. George W. GITZLER, Appellant (Action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Wilson, West Islip, for appellants.
Edward J. Slavin, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Before O'CONNOR, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, BROWN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In two actions to recover damages for fraud in connection with the purchase of real property, defendants appeal from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, both entered April 29, 1983, each of which granted judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,500, the amount of his deposit, upon a directed verdict.
Judgments reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, Action No. 2 dismissed, and new trial granted as to Action No. 1.
Plaintiff presented no evidence at trial in Action No. 2 that defendant Gitzler acted other than as the agent of the corporate defendant, and Gitzler's testimony that he acted only in his representative capacity was uncontradicted. Consequently, the case against Gitzler individually should have been dismissed.
Further, the judgment in Action No. 1 against the corporate defendant must be reversed as the trial court erred in directing a verdict in this case. In considering a motion for a directed verdict, a court is not to engage in a weighing of the evidence, but instead must determine that by no rational process could the trier of facts find for the nonmoving party (see, e.g., Lipsius v. White, 91 A.D.2d 271, 276-277, 458 N.Y.S.2d 928; Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N.Y. 241, 245, 54 N.E.2d 809). The court must also take the view of the evidence that is most favorable to the nonmoving party (see Holmberg v. Donohue, 24 A.D.2d 569, 570, 262 N.Y.S.2d 127), and the motion should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question (see, e.g., Cox v. Don's Welding Service, Inc. 58 A.D.2d 1013, 397 N.Y.S.2d 272; LeMay v. Frankel, 80 A.D.2d 665, 436 N.Y.S.2d 398). Here, the parties differed as to when and under what circumstances the alleged misrepresentations about the building of a Merit station were made, raising clear issues of fact and credibility to be resolved by the jury.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Friedman Furs & Fashion, LLC
...evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” (Scott v. Long Is. Power Auth., 294 A.D.2d 348, 348 [2002], citing Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 A.D.2d 366 [1985] ). Finally, on such a motion, the court is not to determine credibility, but whether a factual issue exists (Capelin Ass......
-
In re Brown
...] is in question," Bzezi v. Eldib, 112 A.D.3d 772, 977 N.Y.S.2d 354 (2nd Dept. [2013] ) (citing Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 A.D.2d 366, 489 N.Y.S.2d 580 (2nd Dept. [1985] ) ; and Brownrigg v. New York City Hous. Auth., 70 A.D.3d 619, 898 N.Y.S.2d 545 (2nd Dept. [2010] ) ).16 See Pipel......
-
Jastrzebski v. North Shore School Dist.
...is to determine whether "by no rational process could the trier of facts find for the nonmoving party" (see, Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 A.D.2d 366, 489 N.Y.S.2d 580; see also, Westchester Joint Water Works v. City of Yonkers, 155 A.D.2d 534, 536, 547 N.Y.S.2d 392; Dooley v. Skodnek, ......
-
Demartino v. 3858, Inc.
...evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” (Scott v. Long Is. Power Auth., 294 A.D.2d 348, 348 [2002], citing Dolitsky v. Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 A.D.2d 366 [1985] ). On such a motion, the court is not to determine credibility, but whether a factual issue exists (Capelin Assoc. v. Gl......