Albert v. Reich Bros. Long Island Motor Freight, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albert v. Reich Bros. Long Island Motor Freight, Inc.

246 A.D. 608

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 608 (Albert v. Reich Bros. Long Island Motor Freight, Inc.) 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

Albert v. Reich Bros. Long Island Motor Freight, Inc., 246 A.D. 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict in the sum of $3,000, for personal injuries sustained as the result of a collision at a street intersection between his automobile and the corporate defendant’s truck, and order denying motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, affirmed, with costs, pursuant to the provisions of section 106 of the Civil Practice Act. No opinion. Young, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur; Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial because of a prejudicial error in refusing to charge as requested by defendants’ counsel at folio 416 and for the further reason that the court in the main charge, at folios 410-412, practically directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

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

Judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict in the sum of $3,000, for personal injuries sustained as the result of a collision at a street intersection between his automobile and the corporate defendant’s truck, and order denying motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, affirmed, with costs, pursuant to the provisions of section 106 of the Civil Practice Act. No opinion. Young, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur; Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial because of a prejudicial error in refusing to charge as requested by defendants’ counsel at folio 416 and for the further reason that the court in the main charge, at folios 410-412, practically directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-v-reich-bros-long-island-motor-freight-inc-nyappdiv-1935.