Abercrombie v. Brown & Seccomb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abercrombie v. Brown & Seccomb

264 A.D. 751, 35 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 1, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 751 (Abercrombie v. Brown & Seccomb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abercrombie v. Brown & Seccomb, 264 A.D. 751, 35 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No ■pinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. I James Travers, as Administrator, etc., of Patrick Travers, Deceased, Appellant, v. The Young Men’s Christian Association of the City of New York, Respondent, Impleaded with Another, Defendant.— Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the question whether the individual (defendant was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the klleged assault was one of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. |(Osipoff v. City of New York, 286 N. Y. 422, 431.) Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No ■pinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. I James Travers, as Administrator, etc., of Patrick Travers, Deceased, Appellant, v. The Young Men’s Christian Association of the City of New York, Respondent, Impleaded with Another, Defendant.— Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the question whether the individual (defendant was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the klleged assault was one of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. |(Osipoff v. City of New York, 286 N. Y. 422, 431.) Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 751, 35 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abercrombie-v-brown-seccomb-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack