Arwin Sportswear Co. v. Salerno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arwin Sportswear Co. v. Salerno

273 A.D. 882, 77 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5114

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1948·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Sections 1120 and 1124 of the Civil" Practice Act were not complied with insofar as the second cause of action is concerned. These provisions are mandatory (Kram v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 238 App. Div. 680). Moreover, there is not a sufficient basis in the record to support the damages awarded in either cause of action. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered on all issues, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur; Dore, J. P., concurs in result.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered on all issues, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

Sections 1120 and 1124 of the Civil" Practice Act were not complied with insofar as the second cause of action is concerned. These provisions are mandatory (Kram v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 238 App. Div. 680). Moreover, there is not a sufficient basis in the record to support the damages awarded in either cause of action. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered on all issues, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur; Dore, J. P., concurs in result.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered on all issues, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Settle order on notice.

Arwin Sportswear Co. v. Salerno, 273 A.D. 882, 77 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

273 A.D. 882 (Arwin Sportswear Co. v. Salerno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related