Caspary v. Bardong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caspary v. Bardong

239 A.D. 849

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

DecidedMay 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 849 (Caspary v. Bardong) 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

Caspary v. Bardong, 239 A.D. 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Amended order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unanimously affirmed, with costs. The motion papers fail to show that any effort was made, prior to the trial, to ascertain where plaintiff was employed. The so-called newly-discovered evidence was available long before the trial and could have been obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ.

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

Amended order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unanimously affirmed, with costs. The motion papers fail to show that any effort was made, prior to the trial, to ascertain where plaintiff was employed. The so-called newly-discovered evidence was available long before the trial and could have been obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caspary-v-bardong-nyappdiv-1933.