Muth v. J & T Metal Products Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1980 |
| Citation | 74 A.D.2d 898,425 N.Y.S.2d 858 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | John MUTH et al., Appellants, v. J & T METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. et al., Respondents. |
Nager & Gilbert, P. C., Mineola (George Nager, Mineola, of counsel), for appellants.
Joseph P. Carey, Mineola, for respondents.
Before MANGANO, J. P., and RABIN, GULOTTA and COHALAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 6, 1979, which is in favor of defendants and against them, upon the trial court's granting of defendants' motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
However much a trial court may disagree with a jury verdict, if the verdict is one which reasonable men could have rendered after reviewing conflicting evidence, the court may not substitute its personal judgment in place of the verdict (see Triggs v. Advance Trucking Corp., 23 A.D.2d 777, 778, 258 N.Y.S.2d 488, 490). From the record, it is apparent that there existed a number of factual questions which required the submission of the case to the jury. From the verdict rendered it may be inferred that the jury found that plaintiff John Muth's freedom from contributory negligence and the negligence of the defendants had sufficiently been established. After reviewing the testimony we are of the opinion that a jury could rationally make that determination. Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
However, we cannot reinstate the verdict due to two errors which occurred at the trial. First, the court erred in admitting into evidence as a past recollection recorded the entire police accident report prepared by an officer who arrived at the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred. The report necessarily contained information which was not based upon the then existing impressions of the entrant. The description of how the accident occurred may well reflect statements made by various unnamed bystanders. As such, it is inadmissible (see Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124, 170 N.E. 517).
Second, the trial court's denial of defendants' request to poll the jury after the verdict was announced, was improper. After a verdict has been received, and before it is entered, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iannielli v. Consolidated Edison Co.
...recorded, a police accident report which may reflect statements by various, unnamed bystanders (Muth v. J & T Metal Products Co., --- A.D.2d ---, 425 N.Y.S.2d 858 (1980)). Records prepared solely for the purpose of litigation are excluded (People v. Samuels, 302 N.Y. 163, 96 N.E.2d 757; Peo......
-
Kenny v. George A. Fuller Co.
...v. Town of Smithtown, 81 A.D.2d 607, 440 N.Y.S.2d 554, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 995, 449 N.Y.S.2d 471, 434 N.E.2d 707 Muth v. J & T Metal Products Co., 74 A.D.2d 898, 425 N.Y.S.2d 858, mot. for lv. to app. dsmd. 51 N.Y.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 365, 411 N.E.2d The judgment must, accordingly, be affirmed.......
-
Pollicina v. Misericordia Hosp. Medical Center
...of the evidence ..." (Halvorsen v. Ford Motor Co., 132 A.D.2d 57, 62, 522 N.Y.S.2d 272 (1987), Muth, et al. v. J & T Metal Products Company, 74 A.D.2d 898, 425 N.Y.S.2d 858 (1980), appeal dismissed 51 N.Y.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 365, 411 N.E.2d 784 (1980), and Pfohl v. Wipperman, 41 A.D.2d 891......
-
Luppino by Luppino v. Busher
...that the parties have an absolute right to have the jury polled, and the refusal to do so was error (see, Muth v. J & T Metal Prods. Co., 74 A.D.2d 898, 425 N.Y.S.2d 858, lv. dismissed 51 N.Y.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 365, 411 N.E.2d 784; Dore v. Wyer, 1 A.D.2d 973, 150 N.Y.S.2d 886). Moreover, ......