Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.

276 A.D.2d 776

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 776 (Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate 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

Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., 276 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs as to the affirmance of the judgment dismissing the cross complaint of defendant Cauldwell-Wingate Company, Inc., against defendant Chittenden Lumber Co., Inc., but dissents as to the reversal of that part of the judgment which is in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant Cauldwell-Wingate Company, Inc., and as to the dismissal of the complaint against that defendant, and votes for affirmance of the judgment insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff and against such defendant, on the ground that, upon the record and the charge of the court, issues of fact were presented for determination by the jury; and upon the further ground that the jury’s verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. [See post, p. 907.]

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

Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs as to the affirmance of the judgment dismissing the cross complaint of defendant Cauldwell-Wingate Company, Inc., against defendant Chittenden Lumber Co., Inc., but dissents as to the reversal of that part of the judgment which is in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant Cauldwell-Wingate Company, Inc., and as to the dismissal of the complaint against that defendant, and votes for affirmance of the judgment insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff and against such defendant, on the ground that, upon the record and the charge of the court, issues of fact were presented for determination by the jury; and upon the further ground that the jury’s verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. [See post, p. 907.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broderick-v-cauldwell-wingate-co-nyappdiv-1949.