From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pfohl v. Wipperman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 21, 1974
310 N.E.2d 546 (N.Y. 1974)

Opinion

Argued February 20, 1974

Decided March 21, 1974

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, CARMAN F. BALL, J.

Laurin D. Rachlin and David C. Laub for appellants.

Raymond T. Miles for Richard Wipperman, respondent.

Arthur J. Maloney for Town of Cheektowaga, respondent.


Order affirmed, with costs to defendants-respondents, in the following memorandum: Our court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We conclude, however, that there are presented only questions of fact as to the weight of the evidence and no question of law. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is outside our power of review. ( Armstrong v. Campbell, 30 N.Y.2d 704; Cameron v. Permakoff, 28 N.Y.2d 938; Indiere v. Strickroth, 28 N.Y.2d 513; Musumeci v. Pillsbury Mills, 11 N.Y.2d 948; Gutin v. Mascali Sons, 11 N.Y.2d 97; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev. ed.], § 148, p. 588.)

Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, RABIN and STEVENS.


Summaries of

Pfohl v. Wipperman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 21, 1974
310 N.E.2d 546 (N.Y. 1974)
Case details for

Pfohl v. Wipperman

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES A. PFOHL, Deceased, by RICHARD C. PFOHL, Administrator of the…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 21, 1974

Citations

310 N.E.2d 546 (N.Y. 1974)
310 N.E.2d 546
354 N.Y.S.2d 951

Citing Cases

Vadala v. Carroll

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division's determination…

Santos v. City of New York

The jury was free to conclude that Officer Goodwin was negligent in the handling of his gun during the…