Case Name: Michael Woicianowicz, Appellant, v. Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1921-12-16
Citations: 232 N.Y. 256
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Woicianowicz, Appellant, v. Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 232
Pages: 256–263

Head Matter:
Michael Woicianowicz, Appellant, v. Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company, Respondent.
Appeal — when only statement in order of reversal is a conclusion of law Court of Appeals must assume that facts have been passed upon by Appellate Division and affirmed — when question as to residence of plaintiff at time of bringing action properly submitted to jury — sufficiency of evidence as to negligence and freedom from contributory negligence to present question of fact.
1. An adjudication by the Appellate Division that the judgment and order appealed from be reversed and the complaint dismissed “ on the ground that the plaintiff was not a bona fide resident of the state of New York and that the action should have been brought in Pennsylvania ” constitutes a determination as a matter of law that there is no evidence to sustain a finding that the plaintiff was a bona fide resident of the state of New York and, where no other question of fact is specified or referred to in the order, this court must assume that all other questions of fact have been passed upon by the Appellate Division and affirmed in the plaintiff’s favor. (Code Civ. Pro. § 1338.)
2. In an action brought by plaintiff for damages sustained by him in the defendant’s coal mine in Pennsylvania, testimony that after plaintiff had been discharged by defendant in Pennsylvania he came to New York and obtained work, that in March of 1916 he brought his family to New York and that since the time he first came he had not been back to ’ Pennsylvania but had lived continuously in this state and that it was his intention to stay here permanently, presents a question of fact which the trial court properly left to the jury to determine as to whether or not at the time of bringing this action plaintiff was a bona fide resident of this state. The Appellate Division was in error in determining as matter of law that there was no such issue, that the plaintiff was not a resident of New York state and that his complaint should be dismissed.
3. Upon examination of the testimony as to negligence and freedom from contributory negligence, held, that there was sufficient evidence in plaintiff’s favor to require submission to the jury.
Woicianowicz v. P. & R. Coal & Iron Co., 186 App. Div. 906, reversed.
(Argued October 18, 1921;
decided December 16, 1921.)
Appeal from a judgment, entered December 31, 1918, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint.
John C. Robinson for appellant.
The Appellate Division erred in reversing the judgment and order of the Trial Term and dismissing the complaint.. (Ubart v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 117 App. Div. 831; Persick v. Phila. & Reading Co., 182 App. Div. 291; Crowley v. Royal Exchange Shipping Co., 10 Daly, 409; 89 N. Y. 607; Johnson v. Adams Tobacco Co., 14 Hun, 89; Phila. & Reading Railway Co. v. Sherman, 230 Fed. Rep. 814; Borckman v. Terry Construction Co., 216 N. Y. 139; Faber v. City of New York, 213 N. Y. 411; Clancy v. N. Y., N. H. & Hart. R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 235; Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 N. Y. 499; Junkerman v. Tilyou Realty Co., 213 N. Y. 404.) The evidence as to defendant’s negligence presented a question of fact for the jury. (Volkmar v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 134 N. Y. 418; Irish v. Union B. & P. Co., 103 App. Div. 45, 52; 183 N. Y. 508; Dean v. T. A. R. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 220; Faith v. N. Y., etc., R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 222; 185 N. Y. 556; Barrett v. L. O., etc., Co., 174 N. Y. 310; Jenks v. Thompson, 179 N. Y. 20; Welle v. Celluloid Co., 175 N. Y. 401.)
Pierre M. Brown for respondent.
The Appellate Division was justified in finding that the plaintiff was not a bona fide resident of this state. This court cannot review its conclusion. (Meyer v. Clark, 45 N. Y. 288; Chapman v. Erie Ry. Co., 55 N. Y. 587; Matter of Newcomb, 192 N. Y. 238; Bagdon v. P. & R. Coal & Iron Co., 178 App. Div. 662; U. S. Trust Co. v. Hart, 150 App. Div. 413; 208 N. Y. 617; Matter of Lydig, 191 App. Div. 117; Matter of Nichols, 54 N. Y. 62; Phillips v. Lindley, 112 App. Div. 283; 188 N. Y. 606; Hislop v. Taafe, 141 App. Div. 40; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 556; Barker v. Cunard S. S. Co., 91 Hun, 496, 497; 157 N. Y. 693.) The case should not have been submitted to the jury on the question of liability, as the plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. (O’Donnell v. P. & R. Coal & Iron Co., 249 Penn. St. 497.)

Opinion:
Crane, J.
This action was brought by the plaintiff for damages sustained by him in the defendant's coal mine in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, where he was employed. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was a resident of the city and state of New York which was denied'by the answer. The defendant also pleaded as a separate and distinct defense that the plaintiff was a non-resident and that it was a non-resident corporation. The court charged the jury among other things as follows:
" I will charge the jury without any qualification on that if the jury find this plaintiff came here to' New York for the particular purpose of bringing this particular lawsuit and for that purpose alone, and that his residence here is not bona fide, it is their duty to find in favor of the defendant. Do you want it any differently? I will take your word for it.
" Mr. Brown: I think that is substantially so. If the jury believe the plaintiff came to New York for the purpose of bringing this action without the intention of becoming a resident, their verdict must be for the defendant."
" The Court: I so charge at the request of both counsel."
The Appellate Division by its order adjudged that the judgment and order appealed from be reversed and the complaint dismissed " on the ground that the plaintiff was not a bona fide resident of the state of New York and that the action should have been brought in the state of Pennsylvania."
Pursuant to the provisions of section 1338 of the Code of Civil Procedure we must assume that all other questions of fact have been passed upon by the Appellate Division and affirmed in the plaintiff's favor.
By that section it must be conclusively presumed that the judgment was not reversed or a new trial granted upon a question of fact unless the particular question is specified and referred to in the order appealed from. The only reference in the order is to the fact regarding the' plaintiff's residence.
As to this the Appellate Division have determined as a matter of law that there is no evidence to sustain a finding that the plaintiff was a bona fide resident of the state of New York.
In this we think the Appellate Division was in error.
The plaintiff testified that after he had been discharged by the defendant in Pennsylvania and being unable to get further work there, he came to New York at the invitation of a friend and obtained work in a pipe factory; that in March of 1916 he brought bis family to New York and that since the time he first came he had not been back to Pennsylvania, but had lived at Woodhaven, New York, for about six months and thereafter went to live at 442 Greenwich street, New York city, until he moved to Greenpoint avenue, Brooklyn, which was his residence at the time of the trial. He also testified that when he came to New York city it was his intention to stay here permanently.
Upon this testimony we think a question of fact was raised which the court very properly left to the jury to determine as above stated whether or not at the time of bringing this action the plaintiff was -a bona fide resident of this state and that the Appellate Division was in error in deteimining as a matter of law that there was no such issue, that the plaintiff was not a resident of New York state and that his complaint should have been dismissed.
As the above was the only question of fact which the Appellate Division disapproved and all other questions of fact being approved, pursuant to the terms and provisions of section 1338 of the Code of Civil Procedure above referred to, the judgment of the Appellate Division must be reversed, unless there was error in the law. Whether there was any evidence of negligence and .freedom from contributory negligence presents a question of law reviewable on this appeal. We have examined the evidence and conclude that there was sufficient evidence in the plaintiff's favor to require submission of this case to the jury.
The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and that of Trial Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.