Barnes v. Bollhorst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnes v. Bollhorst

14 A.D.2d 774, 219 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8767

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 14 A.D.2d 774 (Barnes v. Bollhorst) 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

Barnes v. Bollhorst, 14 A.D.2d 774, 219 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Questions of fact exist: (1) as to whether defendant, a private person, instigated or directed the arrest and imprisonment, as distinguished from merely furnishing information to police officers who made the arrest, for their guidance (cf. Francis v. Taft Cleaners & Dyers, 281 App. Div. 893, motion for reargument and for leave to appeal denied 281 App. Div. 983, motion for leave to appeal denied 305 N. Y. 930; Stearns v. New York City Tr. Auth., 24 Misc 2d 216, affd. 12 A D 2d 451); and (2) as to whether there was probable cause for the arrest and imprisonment (cf. Agar v. Kelsey, 253 App. Div. 726). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. [28 Mise 2d 866.]

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

Questions of fact exist: (1) as to whether defendant, a private person, instigated or directed the arrest and imprisonment, as distinguished from merely furnishing information to police officers who made the arrest, for their guidance (cf. Francis v. Taft Cleaners & Dyers, 281 App. Div. 893, motion for reargument and for leave to appeal denied 281 App. Div. 983, motion for leave to appeal denied 305 N. Y. 930; Stearns v. New York City Tr. Auth., 24 Misc 2d 216, affd. 12 A D 2d 451); and (2) as to whether there was probable cause for the arrest and imprisonment (cf. Agar v. Kelsey, 253 App. Div. 726). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. [28 Mise 2d 866.]

Thomas Rosario, Ovidio Vega and Ray Cabel v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U., Abe Dolgen, Individually and as Manager of Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U., and the City of New York, Thomas Rosario, Ovidio Vega and Ray Cabel v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U., and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Afl-Cio

605 F.2d 1228 (Second Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 774, 219 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-bollhorst-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack