De Bono v. Lombardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Bono v. Lombardi

277 A.D.2d 902

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

DecidedJune 26, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 902 (De Bono v. Lombardi) 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

De Bono v. Lombardi, 277 A.D.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for alleged breach of a contract to demolish an existing building and erect a new building, judgment in respondent’s favor upon a counterclaim, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In my opinion the trial court unduly restricted plaintiff’s proof with respect to what occurred at the meeting at the attorney’s office at which, apparently, defendant was present. There is no evidence that what was said was “ without prejudice ” and the attorney’s statement that such was the case was immediately -denied. Some further inquiry should have been permitted to lay a foundation, if possible, for the reception in evidence of any unqualified and unequivocal admission which might have been made. (Cf. White v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 102 N. Y. 660; Brice V. Bauer, 108 N. Y. 428, 433; Zimmerman v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., 246 App. Div. 306, 315, and Armour v. Gaffey, 30 App. Div. 121, 129.)

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

In an action to recover damages for alleged breach of a contract to demolish an existing building and erect a new building, judgment in respondent’s favor upon a counterclaim, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In my opinion the trial court unduly restricted plaintiff’s proof with respect to what occurred at the meeting at the attorney’s office at which, apparently, defendant was present. There is no evidence that what was said was “ without prejudice ” and the attorney’s statement that such was the case was immediately -denied. Some further inquiry should have been permitted to lay a foundation, if possible, for the reception in evidence of any unqualified and unequivocal admission which might have been made. (Cf. White v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 102 N. Y. 660; Brice V. Bauer, 108 N. Y. 428, 433; Zimmerman v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., 246 App. Div. 306, 315, and Armour v. Gaffey, 30 App. Div. 121, 129.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-bono-v-lombardi-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack