Albert v. Lust
270 A.D. 751, 59 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783
Opinion
Order unanimously modified so that the defendant will only be required to particularize concerning such claims of contributory negligence as it intends to assert in addition to those it may be able to develop on the cross-examination. (Murrain v. Wilson Line, Inc., 266 App. Div. 179; Captan v. Associated Transport, Inc., 269 App. Div. 936.) Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Albert v. Lust, 270 A.D. 751, 59 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).
270 A.D. 751 (Albert v. Lust) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Murrain v. Wilson Line, Inc.
266 A.D. 179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)
Captan v. Associated Transport, Inc.
269 A.D. 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)