Lewin v. Moody

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewin v. Moody

131 Misc. 833, 228 N.Y.S. 281, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 803

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 10, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 131 Misc. 833 (Lewin v. Moody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewin v. Moody, 131 Misc. 833, 228 N.Y.S. 281, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued for legal services. Respondents contend that the services were rendered to and on account of a corporation in which they were interested. The most that can be said in support of the direction of the verdict is that different inferences might be drawn from plaintiff’s testimony. In such a case the most favorable inference must be accorded to plaintiff on appeal. (Veazey v. Allen, 173 N. Y. 359; Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 id. 413.) The drawing of inferences under these circumstances, however, is distinctly the function of a jury. (Alsens A. P. C. Works v. Degnon Contracting Co., 222 N. Y. 34.) Even if it could properly be claimed that parts of plaintiff’s testimony were inconsistent with other parts the ascertainment of the truth is the function of the jury. (Supple v. International R. Co., 208 App. Div. 547; Ruppert v. Singhi, 212 id. 630; Gelb v. Third Ave. R. Co., 123 Misc. 136; Illich v. Liebers, 127 id. 148. See, also, Tierney v. Boston El. R. Co., 216 Mass. 283, 286; Ochs v. Woods, 221 N. Y. 335.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued for legal services. Respondents contend that the services were rendered to and on account of a corporation in which they were interested. The most that can be said in support of the direction of the verdict is that different inferences might be drawn from plaintiff’s testimony. In such a case the most favorable inference must be accorded to plaintiff on appeal. (Veazey v. Allen, 173 N. Y. 359; Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 id. 413.) The drawing of inferences under these circumstances, however, is distinctly the function of a jury. (Alsens A. P. C. Works v. Degnon Contracting Co., 222 N. Y. 34.) Even if it could properly be claimed that parts of plaintiff’s testimony were inconsistent with other parts the ascertainment of the truth is the function of the jury. (Supple v. International R. Co., 208 App. Div. 547; Ruppert v. Singhi, 212 id. 630; Gelb v. Third Ave. R. Co., 123 Misc. 136; Illich v. Liebers, 127 id. 148. See, also, Tierney v. Boston El. R. Co., 216 Mass. 283, 286; Ochs v. Woods, 221 N. Y. 335.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Misc. 833, 228 N.Y.S. 281, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewin-v-moody-nyappterm-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack