Woodson v. New York City Housing Authority

• Decision Date: 25 May 1961
• Citation: 176 N.E.2d 57,217 N.Y.S.2d 31,10 N.Y.2d 30
• Parties: , 176 N.E.2d 57 James WOODSON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 31

217 N.Y.S.2d 31

10 N.Y.2d 30, 176 N.E.2d 57

James WOODSON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 25, 1961.

James L. R. Costello and Seymour S. Brewer, New York City, for appellant.

Alexander E. Rosenthal and Irving Segal, New York City, for respondent.

FROESSEL, Judge.

In this action to recover damages for assault, false arrest and false imprisonment defendant rested entirely on plaintiff's case. The testimony of plaintiff, which is fully corroborated by that of the witness Morris, does not give rise to conflicting inferences, is not contradicted by direct evidence, is not opposed to the probabilities, nor in its nature surprising or suspicious. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly withdrew from the jury the issues of assault, false arrest and imprisonment (Hull v. Littauer, 162 N.Y. 569, 572, 57 N.E. 102, 103; Der Ohannessian v. Elliott, 233 N.Y. 326, 329, 135 N.E. 518, 519; St. Andrassy v. Mooney, 262 N.Y. 368, 186 N.E. 867; 6 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 714; cf. Piwowarski v. Cornwell, 273 N.Y. 226, 229, 7 N.E.2d 111, 112; Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N.Y. 249, 253, 108 N.E. 406, 407; Salomone v. Yellow Taxi Corp., 242 N.Y. 251, 257-258, 151 N.E. 442, 444-445; Kavanagh v. Wilson, 70 N.Y. 177, 179)

Moreover, since the arrest and imprisonment of plaintiff were admittedly without a warrant, the presumption arises that such arrest and imprisonment were unlawful, and the burden of proving justification rested on defendant (Bonnau v. State of New York, 278 App.Div. 181, 182, 104 N.Y.S.2d 364, 365, affirmed 303 N.Y. 721, 103 N.E.2d 340; Clark v. Nannery, 292 N.Y. 105, 108, 54 N.E.2d 31, 32; Schultz v. Greenwood Cemetery, 190 N.Y. 276, 279, 83 N.E. 41, 42). Defendant, however, made no attempt to meet this burden, and 'by no rational process could the trier of the facts base a finding in favor of the defendant (on these issues) upon the evidence here presented' (Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N.Y. 241, 245, 54 N.E.2d 809, 811). The court, therefore, properly charged as a matter of law that these torts had been committed. Furthermore, since defendant merely pleaded a general denial, and no affirmative defense, it would have been precluded from introducing evidence of justification even if it had sought to do so (Peterson v. New York Consol. R. R. Co., 230 N.Y. 566, 130 N.E. 896; Gill v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 284 App.Div. 36, 39, 129 N.Y.S.2d 288, 293, 49 A.L.R.2d 1452).

The uncontradicted testimony presented by and on behalf of plaintiff, which in these circumstances must be deemed conclusive, likewise left no question of fact for the jury as to the assault (Der Ohannessian v. Elliott, supra; St. Andrassy v. Mooney, supra). The extent of the assault merely went to the question of damages, and that issue was properly left to the jury, together with the question of whether...