Barlow v. Husted

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barlow v. Husted

259 A.D. 969, 20 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464

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

DecidedMay 8, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 969 (Barlow v. Husted) 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

Barlow v. Husted, 259 A.D. 969, 20 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: A careful reading of the record leads us to the conclusions that the verdicts in favor of the defendant [Husted] are amply supported by the evidence and are not against the weight thereof, that the plaintiffs were accorded a fair and impartial trial which was properly conducted by the trial judge, and that the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence and their motion to include in the Record on Appeal alleged remarks of the defendant's counsel in his summation were properly denied. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant Husted in an automobile negligence action. The orders deny [970]*970a motion for a new trial and direct a discontinuance of the cause of action against defendant Fitzgerald; the third order denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: A careful reading of the record leads us to the conclusions that the verdicts in favor of the defendant [Husted] are amply supported by the evidence and are not against the weight thereof, that the plaintiffs were accorded a fair and impartial trial which was properly conducted by the trial judge, and that the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence and their motion to include in the Record on Appeal alleged remarks of the defendant's counsel in his summation were properly denied. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant Husted in an automobile negligence action. The orders deny [970]*970a motion for a new trial and direct a discontinuance of the cause of action against defendant Fitzgerald; the third order denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 969, 20 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlow-v-husted-nyappdiv-1940.