Holzer v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holzer v. Rosenberg

209 A.D. 823

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

DecidedMay 15, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D. 823 (Holzer v. Rosenberg) 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

Holzer v. Rosenberg, 209 A.D. 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D. 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzer-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack