Meany v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
This text of 215 A.D. 834 (Meany v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 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.
Opinion
Order granting defendant’s motion for an X-ray examination of the plaintiff reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. (See Van Orden v. Madow, 207 App. Div. 827.) Kelly, [835]*835P. J., Rich, Jayeox and Manning, JJ., concur; Young, J., votes to affirm the order. Order denying plaintiff’s motion for a resettlement of the prior order, by striking out the recital in such order of the affidavit of a physician, sworn to May 11, 1925, also reversed, and the motion granted, without costs. No opinion. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jayeox, Manning and Young, JJ., concur. Both orders are reversed on the law and not in the exercise of discretion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
215 A.D. 834, 213 N.Y.S. 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meany-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-1926.