James W. Brownlee Et Al. v. Hot Shoppes

A new trial is required for the following reasons: Considering the evidence adduced in the aspect most favorable to plaintiffs and according them every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn therefrom (Andersen v. Bee Line, 1 N.Y.2d 169, 172; Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N. Y. 584, 586), we think that defendant's admission in its answer that it was the lessee of the parking area in which the accident occurred, coupled with the fact that maintenance of a parking area was essential to its business, was sufficient to create a jury question on the contested issue of control of the parking area. We also think that the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion, upon the trial, that defense counsel be directed to produce the contract between defendant and the New York State Thruway Authority. That document had been referred to in the pleadings; and defense counsel in his