Goldenberg v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 28 January 1974 |
| Citation | 351 N.Y.S.2d 443,43 A.D.2d 861 |
| Parties | Abraham GOLDENBERG, etc., Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before GULOTTA, P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence and nuisance action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff's intestate, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 26, 1972, in favor of defendants, upon the trial court's dismissal of the complaint at a jury trial.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appeal did not raise questions of fact.
The trial was the second jury trial of this case. At this second trial plaintiff presented the identical evidence that had been placed in the record at the first trial. At the end of plaintiff's case in the first trial, the court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, this court reversed and granted the new trial on the ground that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case (Goldenberg v. City of N.Y., 39 A.D.2d 571, 332 N.Y.S.2d 390). A trial court to which an action has been remitted by an appellate court for a new trial has no jurisdiction to review matters decided by the appellate court (Hornstein v. Podwitz, 229 App.Div. 167, 241 N.Y.S. 123, affd. 254 N.Y. 443, 173 N.E. 674).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacqueline F., Matter of
...Valkenburgh, Nooger v. Hayden, 44 A.D.2d 412, 413, 355 N.Y.S.2d 415, 416, aff'd 36 N.Y.2d 803, 369 N.Y.S.2d 707; Goldenberg v. City of New York, 43 A.D.2d 861, 351 N.Y.S.2d 443; Michalowski v. Ey, 8 A.D.2d 854, 190 N.Y.S.2d 535, aff'd 7 N.Y.2d 71, 195 N.Y.S.2d 633, 163 N.E.2d 863; Hornstein......
-
Merino v. New York City Transit Authority
... ... That remand also necessarily determined that plaintiff had established a prima facie case on the first trial (see, Talevi v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 10 A.D.2d 839, 199 N.Y.S.2d 718; see also, Goldenberg v. City of N.Y., 43 ... Page 790 ... A.D.2d 861, 351 N.Y.S.2d 443). Accordingly, if the evidence submitted by plaintiff on this trial were no less than that on the first trial, a dismissal would be inappropriate and the only alternative to affirmance would be a remand for another trial ... ...
-
Jennifer G., Matter of
...Further, trial judges cannot flout the remittitur of this court, either expressly or implicitly (see e.g. Goldenberg v. City of New York, 43 A.D.2d 861, 351 N.Y.S.2d 443; United States v. Pink, 36 N.Y.S.2d 961; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y.Prac., § 70:453). Consequently, in light of the "firmnes......
-
Town of Arietta v. State Bd. of Equalization and Assessment
...Term's redetermination of the issue was improper and precluded under the doctrine of law of the case (cf. Goldenberg v. City of New York, 43 A.D.2d 861, 351 N.Y.S.2d 443; Hornstein v. Podwitz, 229 App.Div. 167, 241 N.Y.S.2d 123, affd. 254 N.Y. 443, 173 N.E. 674). Similarly, the remaining 10......