Arberman v. Rupp Brothers Motor Sales Corp.
This text of 234 A.D. 886 (Arberman v. Rupp Brothers Motor Sales Corp.) 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.
Opinion
Order of Appellate Term affirming order and judgment of the Municipal Court, and said order and judgment, reversed on the law and a new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide the event. The original verdict was inconsistent and should have been set aside. (Pangburn v. Buick Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228; Cohen v. Wiener, Inc., 179 App. Div. 902: Rosenkrantz v. Standard Motor Service Company, Inc., 181 id. 886.) And the trial court was without power to correct it. (Porret v. City of New York, 252 N. Y. 208, 211.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
234 A.D. 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arberman-v-rupp-brothers-motor-sales-corp-nyappdiv-1931.