From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guinta v. Yoost Photo Play Theatre Company

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 21, 1926
126 Misc. 375 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)

Opinion

January 21, 1926.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Alfred W. Andrews [ James Gibson Ewell of counsel], for the appellant.

Abram S. Jaffer, for the respondent.


The trial judge has the power to grant or deny a motion upon legal grounds to set aside a jury's verdict. But when that authority is once exercised his statutory powers are exhausted. ( Colwell v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co., 57 Misc. 623; Duran v. Chelsea Exchange Bank, 123 id. 158; Conolly v. Jolly, 86 id. 42.) It was, therefore, error for the court to entertain the motion for a reargument of its denial of the motion to set aside the verdict which error requires a reversal of the order. The order appealed from is reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and verdict reinstated.

All concur; present, GUY, WAGNER and LYDON, JJ.


Summaries of

Guinta v. Yoost Photo Play Theatre Company

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 21, 1926
126 Misc. 375 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
Case details for

Guinta v. Yoost Photo Play Theatre Company

Case Details

Full title:TESSIE GUINTA, Respondent, v. YOOST PHOTO PLAY THEATRE COMPANY, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 21, 1926

Citations

126 Misc. 375 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
213 N.Y.S. 394

Citing Cases

Prudential Paper Co., Inc., v. Ashland Press, Inc.

The proper administration of justice requires that error which might be promptly corrected should not be…