Case ID: misc_131/html/0833-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emmanuel Lewin, Appellant, v. Henry I. Moody, Defendant. Edward T. Williams and Another, Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    April 10, 1928.
    Trial — directed verdict — direction of verdict, error, where different inferences might be drawn from plaintiff’s testimony.
    In this action for services it was error to direct a verdict for defendant, for the most that can be said in support of the direction of the verdict is that different inferences might be drawn from plaintiff’s testimony; the drawing of inferences under such circumstances is the function of the jury.
    Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of the City Court, county of New York, entered after a trial before Mr. Justice La Fetra and a jury, on a directed verdict in favor of defendants at the close of plaintiff’s case.
    
      Paul T. Kammerer, for the appellant.
    
      Orr & Brennan [William H. Orr of counsel], for the respondent Edward T. Williams.
    
      James M. Fawcett, for the respondent William 0. Smith.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued for legal services. Respondents contend that the services were rendered to and on account of a corporation in which they were interested. The most that can be said in support of the direction of the verdict is that different inferences might be drawn from plaintiff’s testimony. In such a case the most favorable inference must be accorded to plaintiff on appeal. (Veazey v. Allen, 173 N. Y. 359; Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 id. 413.) The drawing of inferences under these circumstances, however, is distinctly the function of a jury. (Alsens A. P. C. Works v. Degnon Contracting Co., 222 N. Y. 34.) Even if it could properly be claimed that parts of plaintiff’s testimony were inconsistent with other parts the ascertainment of the truth is the function of the jury. (Supple v. International R. Co., 208 App. Div. 547; Ruppert v. Singhi, 212 id. 630; Gelb v. Third Ave. R. Co., 123 Misc. 136; Illich v. Liebers, 127 id. 148. See, also, Tierney v. Boston El. R. Co., 216 Mass. 283, 286; Ochs v. Woods, 221 N. Y. 335.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.