Hyde v. Raduns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hyde v. Raduns

263 A.D. 928, 32 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 928 (Hyde v. Raduns) 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

Hyde v. Raduns, 263 A.D. 928, 32 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. [929]*929All concur, except Dowling, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for granting a new trial on the authority of Moore v. Nye (21 N. Y. Supp. 94; 66 Hun, 628 [3d Dept.]; affd., 142 N. Y. 677); Umfreville v. Keeler (1 T. & C. 486 [4th Dept.]); Rich v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (87 N. Y. 382); Adams v. Gillig (199 id. 314); Ochs v. Woods (221 id. 335); Hobaica v. Byrne (216 App. Div. 307, 309), and Bowery National Bank v. Duncan (12 Hun, 405, 408). (The judgment dismisses the complaint in an action to recover damage for alleged fraud and misrepresentation. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. [929]*929All concur, except Dowling, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for granting a new trial on the authority of Moore v. Nye (21 N. Y. Supp. 94; 66 Hun, 628 [3d Dept.]; affd., 142 N. Y. 677); Umfreville v. Keeler (1 T. & C. 486 [4th Dept.]); Rich v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (87 N. Y. 382); Adams v. Gillig (199 id. 314); Ochs v. Woods (221 id. 335); Hobaica v. Byrne (216 App. Div. 307, 309), and Bowery National Bank v. Duncan (12 Hun, 405, 408). (The judgment dismisses the complaint in an action to recover damage for alleged fraud and misrepresentation. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 928, 32 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-v-raduns-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack