New York Court of Appeals, 1972

Guaspari v. Gorsky

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 5, 1972

29 N.Y.2d 891; 278 N.E.2d 913; 328 N.Y.S.2d 679; 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1610

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Daniel H. (N.Y. 2010)
Merrill v. Albany Medical Center Hospital (N.Y. 1988)
Nateley's Enterprises, Inc. v. Fortunato (Nassau County District Court 1988)
Baginski v. New York Telephone Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Mocciaro v. Lopergolo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Brennan v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Sam & Mary Housing Corp. v. Jo/Sal Market Corp. (N.Y. 1984)
Fiocco v. Doerflinger (Nassau County District Court 1980)
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority (N.Y. 1979)
In re the Claim of Clum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
Bronts v. Kirwan (N.Y. 1977)
Pagnella v. Action for a Better Community, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
Beck v. Goby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
Disalvo v. Bortle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
Catanese v. Whitlow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
DiGrazia v. Castronova (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)
Zinck v. Whelan (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal dismissed, without costs, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right under CPLR 5601 (subd. [a], par. [i]), since neither of the dissents in the Appellate Division is on a stated question of law which would be reviewable in this court. Both dissents rest only on questions of fact or discretion not reviewable by this court, namely, whether the jury’s verdict in plaintiffs’ favor was against the weight of the evidence and whether the Appellate Division should have exercised its discretionary power to order a new trial in the interests of justice. The claimed error in the trial court’s charge, to which reference is made in one of the dissents, does not present any reviewable question of law since no objection was taken thereto at the *892trial (CPLR 4017, 5501, subd. [a], par. 3; see Miles v. R & M Appliance Sales, 26 N Y 2d 451, 454).

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