New York Court of Appeals, 1978

Lebron v. New York City Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 27, 1978 · Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur in Memorandum

44 N.Y.2d 782; 44 N.Y. 782; 377 N.E.2d 482; 406 N.Y.S.2d 38; 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1976

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Shevlin v. PRUDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991)
Scrimsher v. Scrimsher (Idaho 1986)
Iannone v. Cayuga Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
Scott v. First Union Securities, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 2003)
F.N. Wolf & Co. v. Brothers (New York Supreme Court 1994)
Shepherd v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Sherrill v. Grayco Builders, Inc. (N.Y. 1985)
Bastone v. Dial-A-House, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1979)
Lee v. Consolidated Edison Co. (Civil Court of the City of New York 1978)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs to abide the event, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial.

The trial court charged the jury without exception that the provision in the free pass, on which plaintiff was riding at the time of the accident, exempting defendant from liability would be binding on plaintiff if she had received the pass as a gratuity, but not binding if it had been received by her as part of her compensation. The burden on this issue rested on defendant. We find no evidence in the record that the pass had been issued as a gratuity — indeed defendant’s counsel admitted as much on trial — and the documentary evidence considered by the Appellate Division dehors the record is inconclusive. Accordingly, the verdict for defendant is not supportable on the ground that the defense predicated on the pass had been established.

Inasmuch as it cannot be concluded, then, that the general verdict of the jury in favor of defendant was not based on this ground, the verdict must be vacated and a new trial ordered.

*784 Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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