Heiferman v. Greenhut Cloak Co.

163 A.D. 939
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1914·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We think the order of the trial judge setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial was under the circumstances proper and that such order should not have been reversed. The determination of the Appellate Term and the order of the City Court thereupon entered are, therefore, reversed, with costs in this court and- in the Appellate Term, and the original order of the City Court affirmed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Determination and order entered thereon reversed, with costs in this court and the Appellate Term, and original order of the City Court affirmed Order to be settled on notice.

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

Heiferman v. Greenhut Cloak Co., 163 A.D. 939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

163 A.D. 939 (Heiferman v. Greenhut Cloak Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Teich v. Aetna Industrial Corp.
8 A.D.2d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Teich v. Aetna Industrial Corp.
11 Misc. 2d 530 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Karas v. H. R. Laboratories, Inc.
271 A.D.2d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Kay v. Frick
211 A.D. 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)