Case ID: nys_113/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HENDRICK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRONIN et al. v. BIENENZUCHT et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 16, 1908.)
    Appeal- and Error (§ 1015)—Review—Orders Respecting New Trials.
    On appeal from orders granting or refusing new trials upon a claim that the verdict is against the evidence, the trial judge’s decision is of the weightiest influence.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3871, 3872; Dec. Dig. § 1015.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
    Action by William Cronin and another against Abraham Bienenzucht and another. From an order setting aside a verdict, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GIEGERÍCH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
    Wait & Foster, for appellants.
    Rose & Putzel, for respondents.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HENDRICK, J.

Appeal from an order setting aside a verdict of the jury as against the weight of evidence. The rule is that, on appeals from orders granting or refusing new trials upon a claim that the verdict is against the evidence, the decision of the trial judge is of the weightiest influence, Aldridge v. Aldridge, 120 N. Y. 614—617, 24 N. E. 1022. The record not only shows no abuse of the discretion which is reposed in the trial justice, but amply sustains the order set- ' ting aside the verdict.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.