De Wald v. Seidenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Wald v. Seidenberg

272 A.D.2d 937

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

DecidedJune 30, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 937 (De Wald v. Seidenberg) 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 Wald v. Seidenberg, 272 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against the owners of an apartment house to recover damages for an assault committed by the janitor or superintendent upon a tenant, judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The proof is insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s cause of action. A new trial would be granted on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence insofar as it finds that appellants’ servant, at the time of the assault, was acting in the furtherance of his masters’ interests and within the scope of his employment. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

In an action against the owners of an apartment house to recover damages for an assault committed by the janitor or superintendent upon a tenant, judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The proof is insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s cause of action. A new trial would be granted on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence insofar as it finds that appellants’ servant, at the time of the assault, was acting in the furtherance of his masters’ interests and within the scope of his employment. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-wald-v-seidenberg-nyappdiv-1947.