Minkin v. Buchler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minkin v. Buchler

232 A.D. 452, 252 N.Y.S. 110, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13841

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 29, 1931·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think that the trial justice, having set aside the verdict rendered by him under stipulation to waive a jury trial and no jury finding being required for determination of the action, should have decided it himself on the merits. The matter is, therefore, remitted to him for that purpose.

The order so far as it directs a new trial should be reversed, without costs, and the action remitted to Trial Term for decision by the trial justice.

Present ■— Finch, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, Martin and Sherman, JJ.

Order so far as it directs a new trial reversed, without costs, and the action remitted to the Trial Term for decision.

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

Per Curiam.

We think that the trial justice, having set aside the verdict rendered by him under stipulation to waive a jury trial and no jury finding being required for determination of the action, should have decided it himself on the merits. The matter is, therefore, remitted to him for that purpose.

The order so far as it directs a new trial should be reversed, without costs, and the action remitted to Trial Term for decision by the trial justice.

Present ■— Finch, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, Martin and Sherman, JJ.

Order so far as it directs a new trial reversed, without costs, and the action remitted to the Trial Term for decision.

Minkin v. Buchler, 232 A.D. 452, 252 N.Y.S. 110, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

232 A.D. 452 (Minkin v. Buchler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related