Bayer v. Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bayer v. Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc.

247 A.D. 191, 286 N.Y.S. 663, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8216

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 191 (Bayer v. Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc.) 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

Bayer v. Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., 247 A.D. 191, 286 N.Y.S. 663, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant-appellant was instrumental in procuring the plaintiff to be held by the magistrate for a violation of section 74-b of the General Business Law either by means of testimony which it knew to be false or by means of the suppression of evidence which it knew to exist. Thus the inference of probable cause arising from the determination of the magistrate was not rebutted by the plaintiff. (Hopkinson v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 249 N. Y. 296; Graham v. Buffalo General Laundries Corp., 261 id. 165.) Indeed, the plaintiff’s evidence at the trial justifies the conclusion that the evidence offered before the magistrate was true.

The judgment so far as appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint as to the defendant-appellant dismissed, with costs.

Present ■— Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Judgment so far as appealed from unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint as to the defendant-appellant dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant-appellant was instrumental in procuring the plaintiff to be held by the magistrate for a violation of section 74-b of the General Business Law either by means of testimony which it knew to be false or by means of the suppression of evidence which it knew to exist. Thus the inference of probable cause arising from the determination of the magistrate was not rebutted by the plaintiff. (Hopkinson v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 249 N. Y. 296; Graham v. Buffalo General Laundries Corp., 261 id. 165.) Indeed, the plaintiff’s evidence at the trial justifies the conclusion that the evidence offered before the magistrate was true.

The judgment so far as appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint as to the defendant-appellant dismissed, with costs.

Present ■— Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Judgment so far as appealed from unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint as to the defendant-appellant dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 191, 286 N.Y.S. 663, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayer-v-pinkertons-national-detective-agency-inc-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack