Eddy Glickman Building, Concreting & Improvement Co. v. Gainsborough Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eddy Glickman Building, Concreting & Improvement Co. v. Gainsborough Construction Co.

138 N.Y.S. 1114

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 138 N.Y.S. 1114 (Eddy Glickman Building, Concreting & Improvement Co. v. Gainsborough Construction Co.) 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

Eddy Glickman Building, Concreting & Improvement Co. v. Gainsborough Construction Co., 138 N.Y.S. 1114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the County Court of Kings County reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide the final' award of [1115]*1115costs, upon questions of fact as well as of law. There is evidence from which the court might find that some work was done under the original contract as late as the 15th of December, 1909, and therefore the fourth finding of fact is erroneous. The eleventh finding of fact, although more strictly a conclusion of law, is erroneous, in that it finds that the notice of lien does not state the business address nor the principal place of business of the lienor.

HIRSCHBERG, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the County Court of Kings County reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide the final' award of [1115]*1115costs, upon questions of fact as well as of law. There is evidence from which the court might find that some work was done under the original contract as late as the 15th of December, 1909, and therefore the fourth finding of fact is erroneous. The eleventh finding of fact, although more strictly a conclusion of law, is erroneous, in that it finds that the notice of lien does not state the business address nor the principal place of business of the lienor.

HIRSCHBERG, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.Y.S. 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddy-glickman-building-concreting-improvement-co-v-gainsborough-nyappdiv-1912.