Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co.

239 A.D. 800

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

DecidedApril 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 800 (Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co.) 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

Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co., 239 A.D. 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment as amended nunc pro tunc by order dated July 25, 1932, and order denying' motion for a new trial reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion, the proofs failed to establish the negligence of the defendants and do show contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. Rapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

Judgment as amended nunc pro tunc by order dated July 25, 1932, and order denying' motion for a new trial reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion, the proofs failed to establish the negligence of the defendants and do show contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. Rapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breedveld-v-a-l-hartridge-co-nyappdiv-1933.