Cohen v. Yalkut

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Yalkut

140 N.Y.S. 524

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 140 N.Y.S. 524 (Cohen v. Yalkut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Yalkut, 140 N.Y.S. 524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The complaint was for damages for breach of contract. The answer contained a general denial and counterclaim. The learned court below rendered judgment for the plaintiff, but, so far as the record shows, made no disposition of the counterclaim. From the record we are unable to determine whether-this was an oversight, or whether judgment was rendered for the amount of the plaintiff’s-claim, because the court did not credit the testimony upon which the defendant relied to establish his counterclaim. Under section 230 of the Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580), the court is required, upon issue joined, to decide all questions of fact and law, and. render judgment accordingly. The counterclaim was in issue, and the fail-" ure of the court below to determine this issue necessitates a' reversal of the judgment. Schaffer v. Fihrer (Sup.) 133 N. Y. Supp. 921.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the0 event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The complaint was for damages for breach of contract. The answer contained a general denial and counterclaim. The learned court below rendered judgment for the plaintiff, but, so far as the record shows, made no disposition of the counterclaim. From the record we are unable to determine whether-this was an oversight, or whether judgment was rendered for the amount of the plaintiff’s-claim, because the court did not credit the testimony upon which the defendant relied to establish his counterclaim. Under section 230 of the Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580), the court is required, upon issue joined, to decide all questions of fact and law, and. render judgment accordingly. The counterclaim was in issue, and the fail-" ure of the court below to determine this issue necessitates a' reversal of the judgment. Schaffer v. Fihrer (Sup.) 133 N. Y. Supp. 921.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the0 event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 N.Y.S. 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-yalkut-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack