Eagle v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eagle v. City of New York

257 A.D. 1046, 14 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9030

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1046 (Eagle v. City of New York) 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

Eagle v. City of New York, 257 A.D. 1046, 14 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action (1) to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff because of the alleged negligence of the defendant when the truck in which the infant was riding was in collision with a sanitation truck of the defendant; and (2) on the part of the infant’s father to recover damages for loss of the latter’s services and for the expenses of his cure. Orders respectively denying plaintiffs’ motion for an order vacating the sealed verdict of the jury and for a new trial, and denying plaintiffs’ separate motion for an order vacating or setting aside the judgment entered in favor of defendant and for a new trial, severally affirmed, with one bill of ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur. [170 Misc. 306.]

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

Action (1) to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff because of the alleged negligence of the defendant when the truck in which the infant was riding was in collision with a sanitation truck of the defendant; and (2) on the part of the infant’s father to recover damages for loss of the latter’s services and for the expenses of his cure. Orders respectively denying plaintiffs’ motion for an order vacating the sealed verdict of the jury and for a new trial, and denying plaintiffs’ separate motion for an order vacating or setting aside the judgment entered in favor of defendant and for a new trial, severally affirmed, with one bill of ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur. [170 Misc. 306.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1046, 14 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eagle-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack