Cunningham v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. City of New York

175 A.D. 795, 162 N.Y.S. 767, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10442

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cunningham v. City of New York. Read the opinion of the Court — 162 A.D. 851 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 29, 1916·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The order here appealed from should be affirmed. The alleged newly-discovered evidence is not such. It could have been presented at the trial or the fact that the alleged payments were made established, and if such evidence had been presented it could not have changed the result. The city paid Waring without any authority whatever. Besides, the city is fully protected under Matter of Cunningham (175 App. Div. 791), decided herewith.

Present — Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Davis, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam:

The order here appealed from should be affirmed. The alleged newly-discovered evidence is not such. It could have been presented at the trial or the fact that the alleged payments were made established, and if such evidence had been presented it could not have changed the result. The city paid Waring without any authority whatever. Besides, the city is fully protected under Matter of Cunningham (175 App. Div. 791), decided herewith.

Present — Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Davis, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cunningham v. City of New York, 175 A.D. 795, 162 N.Y.S. 767, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

175 A.D. 795 (Cunningham v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related