Borowsky v. Gallin

126 A.D. 364, 110 N.Y.S. 818, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 8, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D. 364 (Borowsky v. Gallin) 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
Borowsky v. Gallin, 126 A.D. 364, 110 N.Y.S. 818, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinions

Gaynor, J.:

It was in the discretion of the court below whether it should direct that the issues of fact, or any of them, should be sent to a jury trial (Code Civ. Proc. § 971). It was influenced to some extent in denying the motion by the condition of the jury calendar (it is over two years in arrears) as the memorandum filed with its decision shows. This was not improper. Indeed, motions like this are sometimes made hereabouts to avoid the speedy trial afforded by the equity calendar. A verdict for the defendant would not bind the court; it has the responsibility of giving judgment in the end, and the rule is for the court to try such cases without having its conscience enlightened or aided by a verdict.

The order should be affirmed.

High and Miller, JJ., concurred ; Hooker, J., read for reversal, with whom Woodward, J., concurred.

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

Related

Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v. Baroth
147 Misc. 2d 404 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D. 364, 110 N.Y.S. 818, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borowsky-v-gallin-nyappdiv-1908.