Francis v. Taft Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francis v. Taft Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.

281 A.D. 893, 119 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3703

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 893 (Francis v. Taft Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.) 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

Francis v. Taft Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., 281 A.D. 893, 119 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for false arrest, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff's case, and from an order denying his motion to set aside the decision dismissing the complaint and for a new trial. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. In our opinion, there was a complete failure of proof that defendants, or any of them, instigated or directed plaintiff’s arrest, or did more than merely to furnish information to the police officers when called upon to state facts for their guidance. (Cf. Vernes v. Phillips, 266 N. Y. 298; Grinnell v. Weston, 95 App. Div. 454; Davern v. Drew, 153 App. Div. 844, affd. sub nom. Davern v. Breen, 214 N. Y. 681.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, MacCrate and Beldock, JJ. [See post, p. 983.]

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

In an action to recover damages for false arrest, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff's case, and from an order denying his motion to set aside the decision dismissing the complaint and for a new trial. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. In our opinion, there was a complete failure of proof that defendants, or any of them, instigated or directed plaintiff’s arrest, or did more than merely to furnish information to the police officers when called upon to state facts for their guidance. (Cf. Vernes v. Phillips, 266 N. Y. 298; Grinnell v. Weston, 95 App. Div. 454; Davern v. Drew, 153 App. Div. 844, affd. sub nom. Davern v. Breen, 214 N. Y. 681.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, MacCrate and Beldock, JJ. [See post, p. 983.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 893, 119 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-taft-cleaners-dyers-inc-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack