Garofalo v. Sidote

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garofalo v. Sidote

267 A.D. 960, 47 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746

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

DecidedApril 11, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D. 960 (Garofalo v. Sidote) 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

Garofalo v. Sidote, 267 A.D. 960, 47 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying appellant’s application to place this action on the Military Suspense Calendar, and setting the ease down for trial on a day certain, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs. The appellant, one of two defendants in this negligence action, is now overseas in the military service of the United States. Absence from a trial in which Ms liabilities are being adjudged is prima facie prejudicial. (Boone v. Lightner, 319 U. S. 561, 575.) This prejudice is not overcome by the plaintiff’s consent to the reading of the testimony given by the appellant in a prior action in which the liability of the respective defendants in this action as between themselves was litigated. The plaintiff was not a party to that action and the issues here involved are not necessarily the same. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 992.]

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

Order denying appellant’s application to place this action on the Military Suspense Calendar, and setting the ease down for trial on a day certain, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs. The appellant, one of two defendants in this negligence action, is now overseas in the military service of the United States. Absence from a trial in which Ms liabilities are being adjudged is prima facie prejudicial. (Boone v. Lightner, 319 U. S. 561, 575.) This prejudice is not overcome by the plaintiff’s consent to the reading of the testimony given by the appellant in a prior action in which the liability of the respective defendants in this action as between themselves was litigated. The plaintiff was not a party to that action and the issues here involved are not necessarily the same. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 992.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 960, 47 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garofalo-v-sidote-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack