Kerbel v. Wasserman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kerbel v. Wasserman

143 N.Y.S. 1125

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 143 N.Y.S. 1125 (Kerbel v. Wasserman) 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

Kerbel v. Wasserman, 143 N.Y.S. 1125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

This action was brought to recover for work, labor, and services performed at defendant’s request. Owing to the fact that this suit was not brought until some 10 months after the work was done, and that plaintiff kept no books of account, the trial involved passing upon a great number of items and much detail. It cannot be said that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof; but it seems that the learned judge overlooked an item of $30, which the testimony of the defendant, accompanied by a check in evidence, showed plainly had been paid, and concerning which plaintiff’s testimony is substantially an admission of such payment. His alleged explanation, which succeeded such admission, is unintelligible. This item should therefore be deducted, and the amount of the judgment reduced to $54.55, with appropriate costs, and, as thus modified, the judgment is affirmed, with $10 costs to the appellant, to be set off against the judgment. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

This action was brought to recover for work, labor, and services performed at defendant’s request. Owing to the fact that this suit was not brought until some 10 months after the work was done, and that plaintiff kept no books of account, the trial involved passing upon a great number of items and much detail. It cannot be said that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof; but it seems that the learned judge overlooked an item of $30, which the testimony of the defendant, accompanied by a check in evidence, showed plainly had been paid, and concerning which plaintiff’s testimony is substantially an admission of such payment. His alleged explanation, which succeeded such admission, is unintelligible. This item should therefore be deducted, and the amount of the judgment reduced to $54.55, with appropriate costs, and, as thus modified, the judgment is affirmed, with $10 costs to the appellant, to be set off against the judgment. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 N.Y.S. 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerbel-v-wasserman-nyappdiv-1913.