Hamex Trading Corp. v. Hungarian Discount & Exchange Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamex Trading Corp. v. Hungarian Discount & Exchange Bank

285 A.D. 1125, 140 N.Y.S.2d 331

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

DecidedMay 10, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1125 (Hamex Trading Corp. v. Hungarian Discount & Exchange Bank) 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

Hamex Trading Corp. v. Hungarian Discount & Exchange Bank, 285 A.D. 1125, 140 N.Y.S.2d 331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Rabin, J.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote for a reversal of the order granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. It does not seem at all probable or even possible that the proposed additional testimony could bring about a different result. Defendant bank and the Poultry Society were separate and distinct legal entities and the proposed testimony of the witness Deutsch would be entirely inadequate to establish the contrary. The fact that some of the directors of one were also directors of the other would not place liability on the bank. No claim is made that the defendant was even a stockholder of Poultry. The witness asserts that the bank was the factor for Poultry. That has been conceded by the defendant and no new proof is needed on that issue. In fact, it strengthens the bank’s position that it was an entity separate from Poultry. At best then, all that could be offered on a new trial would be the conclusion of an obviously interested witness to the effect that the defendant bank and not the Poultry Society was the principal in the transaction. But such testimony would be merely cumulative of that already introduced and could not possibly overcome the force of the documentary evidence in the case.

The order granting a new trial should be reversed and the motion denied.

[1126]*1126Peck, P. J., Cohn and Bastow, JJ., concur in decision; Rabin, J., dissents and votes to reverse in opinion in which Breitel, J., concurs.

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion.

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

Rabin, J.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote for a reversal of the order granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. It does not seem at all probable or even possible that the proposed additional testimony could bring about a different result. Defendant bank and the Poultry Society were separate and distinct legal entities and the proposed testimony of the witness Deutsch would be entirely inadequate to establish the contrary. The fact that some of the directors of one were also directors of the other would not place liability on the bank. No claim is made that the defendant was even a stockholder of Poultry. The witness asserts that the bank was the factor for Poultry. That has been conceded by the defendant and no new proof is needed on that issue. In fact, it strengthens the bank’s position that it was an entity separate from Poultry. At best then, all that could be offered on a new trial would be the conclusion of an obviously interested witness to the effect that the defendant bank and not the Poultry Society was the principal in the transaction. But such testimony would be merely cumulative of that already introduced and could not possibly overcome the force of the documentary evidence in the case.

The order granting a new trial should be reversed and the motion denied.

[1126]*1126Peck, P. J., Cohn and Bastow, JJ., concur in decision; Rabin, J., dissents and votes to reverse in opinion in which Breitel, J., concurs.

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1125, 140 N.Y.S.2d 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamex-trading-corp-v-hungarian-discount-exchange-bank-nyappdiv-1955.