Greenfeld v. Schoenfeld

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenfeld v. Schoenfeld

129 N.Y.S. 3

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 4, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 129 N.Y.S. 3 (Greenfeld v. Schoenfeld) 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

Greenfeld v. Schoenfeld, 129 N.Y.S. 3 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The complaint in this action was dismissed, apparently upon the ground that the action involved an accounting between partners, and that the Municipal Court was without jurisdiction to entertain such an action. The return shows that the trial was sum[4]*4maty, and it appéars that the plaintiff was hardly given an opportunity to develop the theory of his case, or to present evidence in support of it. ..It is not clear from an examination of the record whether the agreement between the. parties was to divide the proceeds of their enterprise or the profits. Nor are we able to determine from the record whether the present action involves an accounting. Voegtlin v. Bowdoin, 54 Misc. Rep. 254, 104 N. Y. Supp. 394.

We think the interests of justice require that there should be a new trial, in which the plaintiff shall be permitted to present his proof, so that the court may intelligently determine the nature of the cause of action upon which he claims a right to recover.

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

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

SEABURY, J.

The complaint in this action was dismissed, apparently upon the ground that the action involved an accounting between partners, and that the Municipal Court was without jurisdiction to entertain such an action. The return shows that the trial was sum[4]*4maty, and it appéars that the plaintiff was hardly given an opportunity to develop the theory of his case, or to present evidence in support of it. ..It is not clear from an examination of the record whether the agreement between the. parties was to divide the proceeds of their enterprise or the profits. Nor are we able to determine from the record whether the present action involves an accounting. Voegtlin v. Bowdoin, 54 Misc. Rep. 254, 104 N. Y. Supp. 394.

We think the interests of justice require that there should be a new trial, in which the plaintiff shall be permitted to present his proof, so that the court may intelligently determine the nature of the cause of action upon which he claims a right to recover.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.Y.S. 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenfeld-v-schoenfeld-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack