Anderson v. Leblang

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Leblang

125 Misc. 820, 211 N.Y.S. 613, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 986

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 Misc. 820 (Anderson v. Leblang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Leblang, 125 Misc. 820, 211 N.Y.S. 613, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Judgments and orders unanimously reversed on the law and new trials granted, with fifteen dollars costs in each case to the appellant to abide the event.

The record clearly shows that, as to the second action, the [821]*821defendant conceded the plaintiff was entitled to $115 for cornice work and pilasters and $65 for a lady’s desk. The record is not clear as to the item for $300 claimed under plaintiff’s exhibit 1. The items embraced within the second action, although grouped in one action, were performed under separate contracts. Therefore, while plaintiff may not have been entitled to recover for some of the amounts set forth in that action, he was entitled to be compensated for the items admitted. Since the court has denied the plaintiff any relief, it is fair to assume that the trial justice was, to some extent, controlled by -what was revealed by his view of the premises. That view was not consented to by the parties and was not made in the presence of the plaintiff, and no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to explain anything disclosed by the view. In the absence of the consent of the parties, the court could not view the premises in order to determine whether plaintiff had or had not performed.

Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

Judgments and orders unanimously reversed on the law and new trials granted, with fifteen dollars costs in each case to the appellant to abide the event.

The record clearly shows that, as to the second action, the [821]*821defendant conceded the plaintiff was entitled to $115 for cornice work and pilasters and $65 for a lady’s desk. The record is not clear as to the item for $300 claimed under plaintiff’s exhibit 1. The items embraced within the second action, although grouped in one action, were performed under separate contracts. Therefore, while plaintiff may not have been entitled to recover for some of the amounts set forth in that action, he was entitled to be compensated for the items admitted. Since the court has denied the plaintiff any relief, it is fair to assume that the trial justice was, to some extent, controlled by -what was revealed by his view of the premises. That view was not consented to by the parties and was not made in the presence of the plaintiff, and no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to explain anything disclosed by the view. In the absence of the consent of the parties, the court could not view the premises in order to determine whether plaintiff had or had not performed.

Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 Misc. 820, 211 N.Y.S. 613, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-leblang-nyappterm-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack