Merzke v. Kohlmetz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merzke v. Kohlmetz

33 A.D.2d 875, 307 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 875 (Merzke v. Kohlmetz) 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

Merzke v. Kohlmetz, 33 A.D.2d 875, 307 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The trial court erred in receiving into evidence the two newspaper articles. The author and editor of the principal article, however, testified concerning the statements of fact therein set forth; and in view of the testimony by all the witnesses that the automobile was rusty when taken to plaintiff for restoration, and the statement by plaintiff that although when the automobile was brought to him it was in bad shape, it was not a pile of junk and was certainly restorable, we find that the receipt of the two articles was not such substantial error and so prejudicial to defendant as to merit reversal and a new trial. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court in action to recover payment for labor and materials.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Gabrielli and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The trial court erred in receiving into evidence the two newspaper articles. The author and editor of the principal article, however, testified concerning the statements of fact therein set forth; and in view of the testimony by all the witnesses that the automobile was rusty when taken to plaintiff for restoration, and the statement by plaintiff that although when the automobile was brought to him it was in bad shape, it was not a pile of junk and was certainly restorable, we find that the receipt of the two articles was not such substantial error and so prejudicial to defendant as to merit reversal and a new trial. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court in action to recover payment for labor and materials.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Gabrielli and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 875, 307 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merzke-v-kohlmetz-nyappdiv-1969.