Lansky v. Seeley

New York Court of Appeals

Lansky v. Seeley

91 N.E.2d 722, 300 N.Y. 690, 1950 N.Y. LEXIS 1480

DecidedMarch 2, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.E.2d 722 (Lansky v. Seeley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lansky v. Seeley, 91 N.E.2d 722, 300 N.Y. 690, 1950 N.Y. LEXIS 1480 (N.Y. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment, insofar as it dismisses the complaint against the defendant, J. Eastman Sheehan, affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie ease as against him (Kinsley v. Carravetta, 244 App. Div. 213, 218, affd. 273 N. Y. 559). Judgments, insofar as they direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, Bobert Seeley, and dismiss the [692]*692complaint as to him, reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, upon the "ground that the record presents questions of fact for the jury (Henderson v. Crystal Aquatic Arena, 298 N. Y. 519; Cornbrooks v. Terminal Barber Shops, 282 N. Y. 217; Bernstein v. Greenfield, 281 N. Y. 77).

As to defendant J. Eastman Sheehan: The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

As to defendant Robert Seeley: The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Fboessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment, insofar as it dismisses the complaint against the defendant, J. Eastman Sheehan, affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie ease as against him (Kinsley v. Carravetta, 244 App. Div. 213, 218, affd. 273 N. Y. 559). Judgments, insofar as they direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, Bobert Seeley, and dismiss the [692]*692complaint as to him, reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, upon the "ground that the record presents questions of fact for the jury (Henderson v. Crystal Aquatic Arena, 298 N. Y. 519; Cornbrooks v. Terminal Barber Shops, 282 N. Y. 217; Bernstein v. Greenfield, 281 N. Y. 77).

As to defendant J. Eastman Sheehan: The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

As to defendant Robert Seeley: The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Fboessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E.2d 722, 300 N.Y. 690, 1950 N.Y. LEXIS 1480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lansky-v-seeley-ny-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack