Monroe v. Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Monroe v. Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc.

46 A.D.2d 682, 360 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3923

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 682 (Monroe v. Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc.) 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

Monroe v. Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc., 46 A.D.2d 682, 360 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for services rendered, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 18, 1974, in favor of defendant Daimler-Bónz of North America, Inc., upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact, were presented on this appeal. When considered most favorably to plaintiff, we believe that sufficient evidence was presented by him of a principal-agency relationship between defendant Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc., and defendant David C. Thieme Corporation so as to require that the case be submitted to the jury. The establishment of such a relationship would subject defendant Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc., to liability for the engineering services rendered by plaintiff. Latham, Acting F. J., Shapiro, Cohalan, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover for services rendered, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 18, 1974, in favor of defendant Daimler-Bónz of North America, Inc., upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact, were presented on this appeal. When considered most favorably to plaintiff, we believe that sufficient evidence was presented by him of a principal-agency relationship between defendant Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc., and defendant David C. Thieme Corporation so as to require that the case be submitted to the jury. The establishment of such a relationship would subject defendant Daimler-Benz of North America, Inc., to liability for the engineering services rendered by plaintiff. Latham, Acting F. J., Shapiro, Cohalan, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 682, 360 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-v-daimler-benz-of-north-america-inc-nyappdiv-1974.