Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co.

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co.

89 A.2d 469, 20 N.J. Super. 178, 1952 N.J. Super. LEXIS 871

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJune 18, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.2d 469 (Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co., 89 A.2d 469, 20 N.J. Super. 178, 1952 N.J. Super. LEXIS 871 (N.J. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cttbiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Colie, reported in 17 N. J. Super. 71 (Law Div. 1951). The attack made upon the conclusion of the trial judge, that the 54-62 Summer Ave. Corp. and Nathan Peckerman agreed that they would resolve the problem of liability by paying Prank Marzotto a certain sum of money and thereby purchase their peace, has no merit. The stipulation of the parties sets forth that

“the cause of action of the plaintiff, Frank Marzotto, has been settled for $3,000.00 and in accordance therewith a stipulation of dismissal has been filed. * * * The defendant, 54-62 Summer Ave. Corp. paid the plaintiff, Frank Marzotto, as its part of the aforesaid settlement of the plaintiff’s claim, $2,000.00; and the defendant, Nathan Peckerman, paid to said plaintiff as his part thereof, $1,000.00.” (Italics ours.)

Neither Poplin Bros., Inc., v. Volk’s Tire Co., 20 N. J. Misc. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1941). nor Frank Murtz Coach Co., Inc., v. Hudson Bus., &c., Co., 23 N. J. Misc. 342 (Sup. Ct. 1945) is apposite.

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

Pee Cttbiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Colie, reported in 17 N. J. Super. 71 (Law Div. 1951). The attack made upon the conclusion of the trial judge, that the 54-62 Summer Ave. Corp. and Nathan Peckerman agreed that they would resolve the problem of liability by paying Prank Marzotto a certain sum of money and thereby purchase their peace, has no merit. The stipulation of the parties sets forth that

“the cause of action of the plaintiff, Frank Marzotto, has been settled for $3,000.00 and in accordance therewith a stipulation of dismissal has been filed. * * * The defendant, 54-62 Summer Ave. Corp. paid the plaintiff, Frank Marzotto, as its part of the aforesaid settlement of the plaintiff’s claim, $2,000.00; and the defendant, Nathan Peckerman, paid to said plaintiff as his part thereof, $1,000.00.” (Italics ours.)

Neither Poplin Bros., Inc., v. Volk’s Tire Co., 20 N. J. Misc. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1941). nor Frank Murtz Coach Co., Inc., v. Hudson Bus., &c., Co., 23 N. J. Misc. 342 (Sup. Ct. 1945) is apposite.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.2d 469, 20 N.J. Super. 178, 1952 N.J. Super. LEXIS 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marzotto-v-gay-garment-co-njsuperctappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack