Butensky v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butensky v. Goldberg

240 A.D. 892

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 892 (Butensky v. Goldberg) 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

Butensky v. Goldberg, 240 A.D. 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. There was a question of fact as to the negligence of defendant. (Greenley v. Miller’s, Incorporated, 111 Conn. 584.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. (Wein v. Woolworth Co., 223 App. Div. 794; Woolworth & Co. v. Conboy, 170 Fed. 934; Lord v. Sherer Dry Goods Co., 205 Mass. 1.)

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

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. There was a question of fact as to the negligence of defendant. (Greenley v. Miller’s, Incorporated, 111 Conn. 584.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. (Wein v. Woolworth Co., 223 App. Div. 794; Woolworth & Co. v. Conboy, 170 Fed. 934; Lord v. Sherer Dry Goods Co., 205 Mass. 1.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butensky-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack