Leventhal v. Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leventhal v. Savings Bank

257 A.D. 1034, 13 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8971

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

DecidedJune 28, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1034 (Leventhal v. Savings Bank) 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

Leventhal v. Savings Bank, 257 A.D. 1034, 13 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We reach the conclusion that a fair question of fact was presented whether the defendant property owner was negligent and whether injuries to the plaintiff Jennie Leventhal were due to her own contributory negligence. We cannot say that the jury verdict was against the weight of evidence. The testimony received over defendant’s objection relating to the difficulty experienced in heating the upper apartment was of doubtful relevancy but we conclude its admission was not so prejudicial to defendant’s rights as to warrant a reversal of the judgment and order and a new trial. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present —- Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We reach the conclusion that a fair question of fact was presented whether the defendant property owner was negligent and whether injuries to the plaintiff Jennie Leventhal were due to her own contributory negligence. We cannot say that the jury verdict was against the weight of evidence. The testimony received over defendant’s objection relating to the difficulty experienced in heating the upper apartment was of doubtful relevancy but we conclude its admission was not so prejudicial to defendant’s rights as to warrant a reversal of the judgment and order and a new trial. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present —- Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1034, 13 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leventhal-v-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1939.