Case Name: CRECELIUS v. CITY OF NEW YORK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-07-24
Citations: 100 N.Y.S. 314
Docket Number: 
Parties: CRECELIUS v. CITY OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 100
Pages: 314–316

Head Matter:
(114 App. Div. 801)
CRECELIUS v. CITY OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
July 24, 1906.)
Trial—Dismissing Complaint on Merits—Direction or Verdict—Power op Court.
Where, at the close of all the evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, no motion being made for the direction of a verdict, and the court reserved its decision, and a verdict for plaintiff was rendered, the court, while authorized to dismiss the complaint, had no power to set aside the verdict and direct a verdict for defendant.
[Ed. Note.—’For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, §§ 373, 396, 397.]
Jenks, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Queens County.
Action by Annie Crecelius against the city of New York. From a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, she appeals. Judgment modified, and, as modified, affirmed.
Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, and RICH, JJ.
George F. Hickey, for appellant.
William Hughes (James D. Bell, on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion:
HIRSCHBERG, P. J.
The plaintiff was injured by a fall upon the sidewalk. The sidewalk was irregularly covered with gravel or broken stone, and had been in that condition for a long time. It is undisputed that the plaintiff knew of its condition, and her description as to how the accident occurred is limited to the statement that "my foot slipped from under me on the gravel that was there." No evidence on her part was given with reference to the degree of care which she was exercising or of any facts or circumstances from which an inference could be drawn that she was taking such precaution as might be deemed commensurate to the situation. At the close of the whole evidence the defendant moved to "dismiss the complaint for lack of affirmative proof that there was no contributory negligence; also upon the ground that the facts proved are insufficient to constitute a cause of action." No motion was made for the direction of a verdict. The court reserved its decision upon the motion which was made, and submitted the case to the jury. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and there after judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint upon the merits. The judgment contains this recital, viz.:
"The defendant having moved to dismiss the complaint and for the direction of a verdict at the close of the whole case, and decision thereon having been reserved, the court, having set aside the verdict of the jury, directed a verdict for the defendant."
The court was without power to render the judgment appealed from. It could dismiss the complaint. It could not destroy the cause of action. This was expressly decided in Levy v. Grove Mills Paper Co., 80 App. Div. 384, 80 N. Y. Supp. 730. See, also, Hoey v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 70 App. Div. 60, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1113, therein cited.
The judgment should be modified, so as to render it a judgment of nonsuit, instead of upon the merits, and, as modified, the judgment and order should be affirmed, without costs.
WOODWARD and RICH, JJ., concur.