Bradley v. W. E. Hedger Transportation Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bradley v. W. E. Hedger Transportation Corp.

250 A.D. 821, 294 N.Y.S. 629, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9130

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 821 (Bradley v. W. E. Hedger Transportation Corp.) 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

Bradley v. W. E. Hedger Transportation Corp., 250 A.D. 821, 294 N.Y.S. 629, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Since plaintiff did not appeal from the order of June 24,1935, denying motion for a new trial on the minutes on aU the grounds stated in section 549 of the Civil Practice Act, and did not appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict, we cannot consider the motion, which resulted in the order appealed from, as more than a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The affidavits in support of the motion faU far short of showing any newly-discovered evidence [822]*822of relevancy or importance, such as would be likely to change the result. All concur. (The order denies a motion for a new trial in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by fall on deck of a boat.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Cunningham, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Since plaintiff did not appeal from the order of June 24,1935, denying motion for a new trial on the minutes on aU the grounds stated in section 549 of the Civil Practice Act, and did not appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict, we cannot consider the motion, which resulted in the order appealed from, as more than a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The affidavits in support of the motion faU far short of showing any newly-discovered evidence [822]*822of relevancy or importance, such as would be likely to change the result. All concur. (The order denies a motion for a new trial in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by fall on deck of a boat.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Cunningham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 821, 294 N.Y.S. 629, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-w-e-hedger-transportation-corp-nyappdiv-1937.