Baird v. Reese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baird v. Reese

261 A.D. 870, 26 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7834

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 870 (Baird v. Reese) 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

Baird v. Reese, 261 A.D. 870, 26 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of the Fulton Trial Term of the Supreme Court dismissing his complaint. The action is to recover damages for alleged false and fraudulent representations. The facts involved in this action were all litigated and decided in Fulton County National Bank & Trust Co. of Gloversville v. Reese (249 App. Div. 702). On the present appeal plaintiff makes no claim that the evidence does not sustain the judgment. His sole criticism is that while testifying as a witness the trial judge should have granted him a recess in order that he might consult with his counsel and frame his answers accordingly. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Foster, JJ.

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

Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of the Fulton Trial Term of the Supreme Court dismissing his complaint. The action is to recover damages for alleged false and fraudulent representations. The facts involved in this action were all litigated and decided in Fulton County National Bank & Trust Co. of Gloversville v. Reese (249 App. Div. 702). On the present appeal plaintiff makes no claim that the evidence does not sustain the judgment. His sole criticism is that while testifying as a witness the trial judge should have granted him a recess in order that he might consult with his counsel and frame his answers accordingly. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 870, 26 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baird-v-reese-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack