Bankert v. Ashe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bankert v. Ashe

21 A.D.2d 747, 250 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3728

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

DecidedMay 22, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 747 (Bankert v. Ashe) 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

Bankert v. Ashe, 21 A.D.2d 747, 250 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The plaintiffs offered proof which presented questions of fact as to the incident which caused the infant’s injury and knowledge of the defendants of the dog’s propensities. The court excluded proof that the defendants had paid for treatment of an earlier injury to another caused by the same animal. This proof was admissible as bearing on the knowledge of defendants as to the dog’s prior conduct. (Appeal from a judgment of Oneida Trial Term granting [748]*748defendants’ motion at end of plaintiffs’ ease to dismiss the complaint in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The plaintiffs offered proof which presented questions of fact as to the incident which caused the infant’s injury and knowledge of the defendants of the dog’s propensities. The court excluded proof that the defendants had paid for treatment of an earlier injury to another caused by the same animal. This proof was admissible as bearing on the knowledge of defendants as to the dog’s prior conduct. (Appeal from a judgment of Oneida Trial Term granting [748]*748defendants’ motion at end of plaintiffs’ ease to dismiss the complaint in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 747, 250 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankert-v-ashe-nyappdiv-1964.