Henzel v. Costich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henzel v. Costich

253 A.D. 863, 1 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8940

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 863 (Henzel v. Costich) 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

Henzel v. Costich, 253 A.D. 863, 1 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Albany Trial Term entered June 19, 1937. The complaint aEeged a cause of action for services in caring for the house rented by defendant Oliver U. Costich, and where he and other employees of the corporate defendant lived wlnle conducting construction work in the Albany area, and in cooking meals for them. Plaintiff claimed a contract was made with her, Henzel, for these services, at an agreed price and reasonable value. Costich was the manager of the corporate defendant, and died before the action was brought. The evidence was sufficient to support plaintiff’s contention as to the making of the contract, and the rendition of the services, and to estabüsh their value. The trial judge received evidence of conversations between plaintiff and Costich, as against the corporation, but not as binding on the deceased. The evidence of other witnesses, and that of plaintiff brought out on cross-examination by the attorney for defendants was ample to justify the jury in rendering its verdict against both defendants. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present— HE1, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, BMss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Albany Trial Term entered June 19, 1937. The complaint aEeged a cause of action for services in caring for the house rented by defendant Oliver U. Costich, and where he and other employees of the corporate defendant lived wlnle conducting construction work in the Albany area, and in cooking meals for them. Plaintiff claimed a contract was made with her, Henzel, for these services, at an agreed price and reasonable value. Costich was the manager of the corporate defendant, and died before the action was brought. The evidence was sufficient to support plaintiff’s contention as to the making of the contract, and the rendition of the services, and to estabüsh their value. The trial judge received evidence of conversations between plaintiff and Costich, as against the corporation, but not as binding on the deceased. The evidence of other witnesses, and that of plaintiff brought out on cross-examination by the attorney for defendants was ample to justify the jury in rendering its verdict against both defendants. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present— HE1, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, BMss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 863, 1 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henzel-v-costich-nyappdiv-1938.