Gitlin v. Stone

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Gitlin v. Stone

126 N.Y.S. 88

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 126 N.Y.S. 88 (Gitlin v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gitlin v. Stone, 126 N.Y.S. 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

GA VEGAN, J.

The defendant contends that the work performed by plaintiff was “plumbing” work, and that, inasmuch as plaintiff is concededly not a plumber and has not complied with the laws of the building and tenement house departments of the city of New York, he cannot recover for the work performed. Schnaier v. Grigsby, 132 App. Div. 854, 117 N. Y. Supp. 455.

At the trial defendant offered to prove by expert testimony that the work performed was “plumbing” work, but the trial judge refused to receive the evidence. It is impossible to determine, from the items sought to be proved, what is and what is not plumbing work, and it was error to exclude evidence on that point; it being a question of fact. Johnston v. Dahlgren, 166 N. Y. 354, 59 N. E. 987.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GA VEGAN, J.

The defendant contends that the work performed by plaintiff was “plumbing” work, and that, inasmuch as plaintiff is concededly not a plumber and has not complied with the laws of the building and tenement house departments of the city of New York, he cannot recover for the work performed. Schnaier v. Grigsby, 132 App. Div. 854, 117 N. Y. Supp. 455.

At the trial defendant offered to prove by expert testimony that the work performed was “plumbing” work, but the trial judge refused to receive the evidence. It is impossible to determine, from the items sought to be proved, what is and what is not plumbing work, and it was error to exclude evidence on that point; it being a question of fact. Johnston v. Dahlgren, 166 N. Y. 354, 59 N. E. 987.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 N.Y.S. 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gitlin-v-stone-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack