Cunningham v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. City of Niagara Falls

244 A.D. 880

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

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 244 A.D. 880 (Cunningham v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

Cunningham v. City of Niagara Falls, 244 A.D. 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: On an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on a verdict rendered at the first trial in this action we reversed the judgment on the law and the facts, and ordered a new trial. A second trial has now been had and another judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on a jury verdict has resulted. We find no substantial difference between the evidence on the two trials — at least, none sufficient to warrant a different conclusion. The grounds of out decision are stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice Edgeomb (reported at 242 App. Div. 39). All concur. (The judgment was for damages for death of plaintiff’s intestate resulting from drowning in a lake in a public park. The order denied a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: On an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on a verdict rendered at the first trial in this action we reversed the judgment on the law and the facts, and ordered a new trial. A second trial has now been had and another judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on a jury verdict has resulted. We find no substantial difference between the evidence on the two trials — at least, none sufficient to warrant a different conclusion. The grounds of out decision are stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice Edgeomb (reported at 242 App. Div. 39). All concur. (The judgment was for damages for death of plaintiff’s intestate resulting from drowning in a lake in a public park. The order denied a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack