Butensky v. Goldberg
240 A.D. 892
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1933·Published
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
Butensky v. Goldberg, 240 A.D. 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).
240 A.D. 892 (Butensky v. Goldberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Greenley v. Miller's, Incorporated
150 A. 500 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1930)
Wein v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
223 A.D. 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)
Lord v. Sherer Dry Goods Co.
90 N.E. 1153 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Woolworth v. Conboy
170 F. 934 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)