Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926

Guinta v. Yoost Photo Play Theatre Co.

Guinta v. Yoost Photo Play Theatre Co.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 21, 1926
126 Misc. 375; 213 N.Y.S. 394; 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 568

Counsel

Alfred W. Andrews [James Gibson Ewell of counsel], for the appellant., Abram S. Jaffer, for the respondent.

Guinta v. Yoost Photo Play Theatre Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.