Conoscenti v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conoscenti v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp.

169 A.D. 923

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

DecidedJune 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D. 923 (Conoscenti v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp.) 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

Conoscenti v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., 169 A.D. 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 36th day of January, 1915, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the 39th day of January, 1915, denying amotion for a new trial. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Ingraham, Pi J., and McLaughlin, J., dissented upon the ground that there was no evidence to sustain a finding that the defendant was negligent or that the decedent was free from contributory negligence, but the testimony expressly shows .that the accident was caused by a violation of the rules established for the protection of defendant’s employees and by an occurrence which the defendant could not have anticipated.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 36th day of January, 1915, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the 39th day of January, 1915, denying amotion for a new trial. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Ingraham, Pi J., and McLaughlin, J., dissented upon the ground that there was no evidence to sustain a finding that the defendant was negligent or that the decedent was free from contributory negligence, but the testimony expressly shows .that the accident was caused by a violation of the rules established for the protection of defendant’s employees and by an occurrence which the defendant could not have anticipated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D. 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conoscenti-v-holbrook-cabot-rollins-corp-nyappdiv-1915.