Beatty v. Healy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beatty v. Healy

248 A.D. 896, 290 N.Y.S. 615, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7991

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D. 896 (Beatty v. Healy) 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

Beatty v. Healy, 248 A.D. 896, 290 N.Y.S. 615, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action to recover for an alleged balance due on a building contract and for extra work, the defendant interposed a counterclaim that the work was not skillfully done, but on the other hand was negligently and dishonestly performed. There was a verdict for defendant on his counterclaim, which was affirmed (246 App. Div. 734). The plaintiff then moved at Special Term for a new trial on newly-discovered evidence. Obviously this evidence was not material to the principal issue concerning the character of the work, and, if produced, would not be likely to change the result. The motion was denied. There must be a finality to litigation. Order denying motion unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ.

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

In this action to recover for an alleged balance due on a building contract and for extra work, the defendant interposed a counterclaim that the work was not skillfully done, but on the other hand was negligently and dishonestly performed. There was a verdict for defendant on his counterclaim, which was affirmed (246 App. Div. 734). The plaintiff then moved at Special Term for a new trial on newly-discovered evidence. Obviously this evidence was not material to the principal issue concerning the character of the work, and, if produced, would not be likely to change the result. The motion was denied. There must be a finality to litigation. Order denying motion unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 896, 290 N.Y.S. 615, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beatty-v-healy-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack