Gundersen v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

241 A.D. 873

This text of 241 A.D. 873 (Gundersen v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 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
Gundersen v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 241 A.D. 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

Order denying motion to resettle case on appeal affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This court may not disturb the rulings of the trial judge in settling a case where an issue of fact arises as to whether an incident did or did not take place on a trial or an exception was or was not taken on a trial. In Zimmer v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. (28 App. Div. 504) there was no issue of fact arising as a result of conflicting contentions or affidavits. The lack of an exception will not disable this court from doing justice where a prejudicial ruling was made on an objection taken to an incident or a question. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Zimmer v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
28 A.D. 504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 A.D. 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gundersen-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-1934.