Gahan v. Oneida National Bank & Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gahan v. Oneida National Bank & Trust Co.

285 A.D. 998, 138 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6431

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 998 (Gahan v. Oneida National Bank & Trust Co.) 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

Gahan v. Oneida National Bank & Trust Co., 285 A.D. 998, 138 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgement reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted;' With 'cost’s to the- appellant ¡ to' abidé the event!‘ Memorandum: The facts as presented on the trial disclose no situation in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could apply1 (George Foltis, Inc., v. City of New York, 287 N. Y. l08); nor Was the doctrine introduced or suggested!by counsel. The5 dharg¿i:óf "the‘trial!'60U'rt'that thiS>:doctriffe’ applied in-this cáse in-patent' error,' and, 'Under ‘the1 Circumstances "of the5 close questions - of- ne'gligetice'-hefe¡‘ presedted,-'. wag prejudicial1’to'the'kppellánt! ■ All'coiicúr. • (Appeal from a júfigm'ent'tif Oneidá; Tfial‘Ten¿;for plaintiff in -a nCgligence action-) Present - McCurn, P.J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Judgement reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted;' With 'cost’s to the- appellant ¡ to' abidé the event!‘ Memorandum: The facts as presented on the trial disclose no situation in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could apply1 (George Foltis, Inc., v. City of New York, 287 N. Y. l08); nor Was the doctrine introduced or suggested!by counsel. The5 dharg¿i:óf "the‘trial!'60U'rt'that thiS>:doctriffe’ applied in-this cáse in-patent' error,' and, 'Under ‘the1 Circumstances "of the5 close questions - of- ne'gligetice'-hefe¡‘ presedted,-'. wag prejudicial1’to'the'kppellánt! ■ All'coiicúr. • (Appeal from a júfigm'ent'tif Oneidá; Tfial‘Ten¿;for plaintiff in -a nCgligence action-) Present - McCurn, P.J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 998, 138 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gahan-v-oneida-national-bank-trust-co-nyappdiv-1955.