Hoffman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

260 A.D. 936, 24 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5535

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1940·Published

Opinion

In an action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of defendant Brady’s alleged negligence in the operation of his truck, and by her father for loss of services and medical expenses, order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent Brady, with leave to the plaintiffs, however, to renew the motion upon a case duly settled as provided in Civil Practice Rule 221. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

In an action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of defendant Brady’s alleged negligence in the operation of his truck, and by her father for loss of services and medical expenses, order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent Brady, with leave to the plaintiffs, however, to renew the motion upon a case duly settled as provided in Civil Practice Rule 221. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Hoffman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 260 A.D. 936, 24 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

260 A.D. 936 (Hoffman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.