Holzer v. Rosenberg
209 A.D. 823
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1924·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Judgment reversed on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence in the ease did not justify the charge of the court as to the parents’ negligence, and we think the charge upon this subject was prejudicial to the plaintiff. (Lynch v. McNally, 73 N. Y. 347; Muller v. McKesson, Id, 195.) There was also error in making ownership of the dog by the defendants a necessary condition of recovery. Keeping or harboring the dog is sufficient. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Young, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holzer v. Rosenberg, 209 A.D. 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).
209 A.D. 823 (Holzer v. Rosenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bitonti v. McGeever
47 Misc. 3d 681 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Rose v. Yorklyn Construction Co.
241 A.D. 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)