Eschen v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eschen v. Brown

56 A.D.2d 834, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 834 (Eschen v. Brown) 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

Eschen v. Brown, 56 A.D.2d 834, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, by an attorney to recover the agreed price and reasonable value of services rendered, defendants Eugene Brown, Cameo East Co., Cameo East Corporation and First Merrick Development Corporation appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 21, 1976, as, upon a jury verdict (1) is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the first two causes of action and (2) dismissed the counterclaim of appellant Brown. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. On this record there was no abuse of discretion or error of law committed by the Trial Judge either (1) in permitting plaintiff to reopen his case or (2) in the manner in which he responded to the jury’s request to hear additional testimony. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, by an attorney to recover the agreed price and reasonable value of services rendered, defendants Eugene Brown, Cameo East Co., Cameo East Corporation and First Merrick Development Corporation appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 21, 1976, as, upon a jury verdict (1) is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the first two causes of action and (2) dismissed the counterclaim of appellant Brown. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. On this record there was no abuse of discretion or error of law committed by the Trial Judge either (1) in permitting plaintiff to reopen his case or (2) in the manner in which he responded to the jury’s request to hear additional testimony. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 834, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eschen-v-brown-nyappdiv-1977.