Levy v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. New York City Railway Co.

110 A.D. 865, 96 N.Y.S. 399

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D. 865 (Levy v. New York City Railway Co.) 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

Levy v. New York City Railway Co., 110 A.D. 865, 96 N.Y.S. 399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The order should be modified by striking out that part of the order designated “2,” because there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff has paid out any money. The only allegation is that she will necessarily expend money in endeavoring to be cured. That portion of the order designated “ 1 ” may be permitted to stand in so far as to require a statement showing in detail how long the plaintiff has been prevented from attending to her business and deprived of her earnings, giving the nature of her business and the amount of income deriyed therefrom, or if employed, the amount of her salary. As thus modified, the order should be affirmed, without Costs' to either party. Present— O’Brien, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin, Laughlin and Houghton, JJ. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The order should be modified by striking out that part of the order designated “2,” because there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff has paid out any money. The only allegation is that she will necessarily expend money in endeavoring to be cured. That portion of the order designated “ 1 ” may be permitted to stand in so far as to require a statement showing in detail how long the plaintiff has been prevented from attending to her business and deprived of her earnings, giving the nature of her business and the amount of income deriyed therefrom, or if employed, the amount of her salary. As thus modified, the order should be affirmed, without Costs' to either party. Present— O’Brien, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin, Laughlin and Houghton, JJ. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D. 865, 96 N.Y.S. 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappdiv-1905.