Dietrich v. Rosen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dietrich v. Rosen

259 A.D. 305, 19 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6130

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

DecidedApril 19, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 305 (Dietrich v. Rosen) 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

Dietrich v. Rosen, 259 A.D. 305, 19 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The undisputed evidence to the effect that, after the perpetration of the first alleged assault, respondent Rosa Dietrich, a married woman of mature years, failed to make disclosure of the incident to her husband or to any one else for over two months, and that, despite the outrage, she thereafter willingly retained her position in appellant’s employ, renders her story as to the occurrences with appellant inherently improbable and opposed to common knowledge and experience. We think that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, and for that reason should be set aside and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Mabtin, P. J., Glennon, Untebmyeb, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Untebmyeb and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The undisputed evidence to the effect that, after the perpetration of the first alleged assault, respondent Rosa Dietrich, a married woman of mature years, failed to make disclosure of the incident to her husband or to any one else for over two months, and that, despite the outrage, she thereafter willingly retained her position in appellant’s employ, renders her story as to the occurrences with appellant inherently improbable and opposed to common knowledge and experience. We think that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, and for that reason should be set aside and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Mabtin, P. J., Glennon, Untebmyeb, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Untebmyeb and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 305, 19 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dietrich-v-rosen-nyappdiv-1940.