Kirson v. Rosenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kirson v. Rosenbaum

230 A.D. 746

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

DecidedJune 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D. 746 (Kirson v. Rosenbaum) 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

Kirson v. Rosenbaum, 230 A.D. 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Hasbrouck, J. (dissenting).

I dissent on the ground that the evidence shows beyond dispute that plaintiff was employed by the defendant and that he did not pay the plaintiff for his services. It was the duty of the court to find the value of such services or the evidence relating thereto or to order the case continued to supply evidence of such value in the interest of justice. As the case stands upon appeal it would appear that the court had failed in its function.

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

Hasbrouck, J. (dissenting).

I dissent on the ground that the evidence shows beyond dispute that plaintiff was employed by the defendant and that he did not pay the plaintiff for his services. It was the duty of the court to find the value of such services or the evidence relating thereto or to order the case continued to supply evidence of such value in the interest of justice. As the case stands upon appeal it would appear that the court had failed in its function.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D. 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirson-v-rosenbaum-nyappdiv-1930.