Foglia v. Rothschild

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foglia v. Rothschild

33 A.D.2d 784, 307 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2558

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 784 (Foglia v. Rothschild) 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

Foglia v. Rothschild, 33 A.D.2d 784, 307 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover chattels, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 13, 1969 after a non-jury trial, adjudging that plaintiff has title to the chattels and is entitled to possession of them and dismissing defendant Rothschild’s counterclaim. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment, dismiss the complaint and grant judgment to appellant on his counterclaim, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, plaintiff’s testimony was so bizarre and so contrary to ordinary, common-sense business ' practice that it must be rejected as incredible. At the very least it was insufficient to rebut the presumption of ownership in defendant Testa, flowing from his possession of the subject chattels.

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

In an action to recover chattels, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 13, 1969 after a non-jury trial, adjudging that plaintiff has title to the chattels and is entitled to possession of them and dismissing defendant Rothschild’s counterclaim. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment, dismiss the complaint and grant judgment to appellant on his counterclaim, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, plaintiff’s testimony was so bizarre and so contrary to ordinary, common-sense business ' practice that it must be rejected as incredible. At the very least it was insufficient to rebut the presumption of ownership in defendant Testa, flowing from his possession of the subject chattels.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 784, 307 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foglia-v-rothschild-nyappdiv-1969.