Evans v. Cox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evans v. Cox

285 A.D. 1043, 140 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603

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

DecidedApril 26, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1043 (Evans v. Cox) 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

Evans v. Cox, 285 A.D. 1043, 140 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously modified and a new trial ordered as to the first cause of action set forth in the complaint and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. The second cause of action should not have been dismissed by the Appellate Term upon the merits but the dismissal was proper because the cause was barred by the Statute of Limitations. An issue of fact was presented upon the trial as to the liability of one or both defendants under the first cause of action. We are prevented from reinstating the judgment of the Municipal Court, however, because no findings were made and the decision awards a lump sum to the plaintiff. It is [1044]*1044impossible to determine whether the award was made upon the first or second causes of action or both. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Breitel, Bastow and Rabin, JJ.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously modified and a new trial ordered as to the first cause of action set forth in the complaint and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. The second cause of action should not have been dismissed by the Appellate Term upon the merits but the dismissal was proper because the cause was barred by the Statute of Limitations. An issue of fact was presented upon the trial as to the liability of one or both defendants under the first cause of action. We are prevented from reinstating the judgment of the Municipal Court, however, because no findings were made and the decision awards a lump sum to the plaintiff. It is [1044]*1044impossible to determine whether the award was made upon the first or second causes of action or both. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Breitel, Bastow and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1043, 140 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-cox-nyappdiv-1955.