Mordoh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mordoh v. City of New York

270 A.D. 896, 60 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4535

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

DecidedApril 1, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 A.D. 896 (Mordoh v. City of New York) 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

Mordoh v. City of New York, 270 A.D. 896, 60 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries, and by his father for expenses and loss of services, the complaint was dismissed by the court when the plaintiffs conditionally rested. Judgment reversed on the law and in the interest of justice, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The trial court erred in restricting the examination of the witness, Duffy, as shown at folios 123-127. When plaintiffs conditionally rested, it was with the reasonable assumption that they would have an opportunity to recall Duffy and to' call the police officer before the case was concluded. The dismissal of the complaint upon motion of defendant immediately after the plaintiffs so conditionally rested, and without affording plaintiffs an opportunity to produce such witnesses, who were employees of the defendant, deprived the plaintiffs of the benefit of their testimony. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries, and by his father for expenses and loss of services, the complaint was dismissed by the court when the plaintiffs conditionally rested. Judgment reversed on the law and in the interest of justice, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The trial court erred in restricting the examination of the witness, Duffy, as shown at folios 123-127. When plaintiffs conditionally rested, it was with the reasonable assumption that they would have an opportunity to recall Duffy and to' call the police officer before the case was concluded. The dismissal of the complaint upon motion of defendant immediately after the plaintiffs so conditionally rested, and without affording plaintiffs an opportunity to produce such witnesses, who were employees of the defendant, deprived the plaintiffs of the benefit of their testimony. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D. 896, 60 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mordoh-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack