Esposito v. Herrschaft

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esposito v. Herrschaft

13 A.D.2d 656, 213 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11625

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

DecidedApril 3, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.2d 656 (Esposito v. Herrschaft) 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

Esposito v. Herrschaft, 13 A.D.2d 656, 213 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by appellants to reverse a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, entered January 23, 1961, after a non jury trial before a Referee to whom the action was referred to hear and determine, in favor of appellants on the second cause of action and dismissing the first cause of action; and for a new trial. Appellants make the motion on the ground that a proper record is unavailable and, hence, they are prevented from prosecuting their appeal. Motion granted; judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and a new trial granted. The findings of fact made by the Referee have not been considered. It appears that no stenographer was present at the trial and that the Referee’s penciled notes constitute the only record of the testimony adduced. The Referee has died, and a search of his files has failed to produce any of his notes or other record of the testimony of the trial. Under the circumstances a new trial must be had. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by appellants to reverse a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, entered January 23, 1961, after a non jury trial before a Referee to whom the action was referred to hear and determine, in favor of appellants on the second cause of action and dismissing the first cause of action; and for a new trial. Appellants make the motion on the ground that a proper record is unavailable and, hence, they are prevented from prosecuting their appeal. Motion granted; judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and a new trial granted. The findings of fact made by the Referee have not been considered. It appears that no stenographer was present at the trial and that the Referee’s penciled notes constitute the only record of the testimony adduced. The Referee has died, and a search of his files has failed to produce any of his notes or other record of the testimony of the trial. Under the circumstances a new trial must be had. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 656, 213 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-herrschaft-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack