Moonitz v. Boro Hall Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moonitz v. Boro Hall Leasing Corp.

259 A.D. 1050, 22 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7923

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

DecidedJune 24, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 1050 (Moonitz v. Boro Hall Leasing Corp.) 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

Moonitz v. Boro Hall Leasing Corp., 259 A.D. 1050, 22 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action brought by the plaintiff wife to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her through the alleged negligence of the defendant, her landlord, who gratuitously made repairs to a certain stair railing and made them so negligently that the railing subsequently gave way, injuring plaintiff; and by plaintiff’s husband to recover damages for loss of services. The husband’s alleged cause of action was the subject of discontinuance. The issues relating to the wife’s cause of action were tried. The jury rendered a verdict in her favor against the defendant, upon which judgment was duly entered. Subsequently an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was duly entered. From such judgment and order defendant appeals. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present —■ Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Action brought by the plaintiff wife to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her through the alleged negligence of the defendant, her landlord, who gratuitously made repairs to a certain stair railing and made them so negligently that the railing subsequently gave way, injuring plaintiff; and by plaintiff’s husband to recover damages for loss of services. The husband’s alleged cause of action was the subject of discontinuance. The issues relating to the wife’s cause of action were tried. The jury rendered a verdict in her favor against the defendant, upon which judgment was duly entered. Subsequently an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was duly entered. From such judgment and order defendant appeals. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present —■ Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 1050, 22 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moonitz-v-boro-hall-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-1940.