Lehar v. Cohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lehar v. Cohn

272 A.D.2d 913

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

DecidedJune 9, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 913 (Lehar v. Cohn) 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

Lehar v. Cohn, 272 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

—Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by reason of [914]*914the collision of two automobiles. Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment •dismissing the complaints, as to defendants Benjamin Cohn and Essie Cohn, at close of plaintiffs’ case, and in favor of defendant Jerome R. McDougal, entered on the verdict of a jury.. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and a new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury are disaffirmed. The interests of justice require a new trial. The refusal of the trial court to reopen the case to enable plaintiffs to adduce further evidence constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

—Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by reason of [914]*914the collision of two automobiles. Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment •dismissing the complaints, as to defendants Benjamin Cohn and Essie Cohn, at close of plaintiffs’ case, and in favor of defendant Jerome R. McDougal, entered on the verdict of a jury.. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and a new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury are disaffirmed. The interests of justice require a new trial. The refusal of the trial court to reopen the case to enable plaintiffs to adduce further evidence constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehar-v-cohn-nyappdiv-1947.