Clark v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. King

284 A.D. 867, 134 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 867 (Clark v. King) 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

Clark v. King, 284 A.D. 867, 134 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We think that plaintiff-appellant made out at least a prima facie case on the question of indebtedness of the testator to her for work, labor and services as a housekeeper for the period not barred by the Statute of Limitations and that question should have been submitted to the jury. We also think that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Florence Clark as to the reasonable value of services as housekeeper in the community in which testator lived. Even without such evidence the testimony of the witness Bonafede was sufficient to permit the jury to arrive at the reasonable value of the services performed. The court should not have dismissed the complaint as a matter of law. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment and order of Seneca Surrogate’s Court, dismissing the complaint in an action to recover the value of services alleged to have been performed by plaintiff for decedent during his lifetime.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser,

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We think that plaintiff-appellant made out at least a prima facie case on the question of indebtedness of the testator to her for work, labor and services as a housekeeper for the period not barred by the Statute of Limitations and that question should have been submitted to the jury. We also think that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Florence Clark as to the reasonable value of services as housekeeper in the community in which testator lived. Even without such evidence the testimony of the witness Bonafede was sufficient to permit the jury to arrive at the reasonable value of the services performed. The court should not have dismissed the complaint as a matter of law. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment and order of Seneca Surrogate’s Court, dismissing the complaint in an action to recover the value of services alleged to have been performed by plaintiff for decedent during his lifetime.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 867, 134 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-king-nyappdiv-1954.