Neglia v. Lielouka

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Neglia v. Lielouka

32 Misc. 707, 65 N.Y.S. 500

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 15, 1900·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the evidence showed that defendant agreed to 'fix the roof if plaintiffs “ stayed ”, and that plaintiffs stayed, but defendant failed to fix the roof within a reasonable time, and that by this fault of the defendant the plaintiffs were damaged as claimed, the complaint should not have been dismissed.

As it does not appear that the plaintiffs had concluded their case on any question, except that of defendant’s negligence, at the time of the dismissal, it is not necessary to consider the question of contributory negligence.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.'

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

Per Curiam.

As the evidence showed that defendant agreed to 'fix the roof if plaintiffs “ stayed ”, and that plaintiffs stayed, but defendant failed to fix the roof within a reasonable time, and that by this fault of the defendant the plaintiffs were damaged as claimed, the complaint should not have been dismissed.

As it does not appear that the plaintiffs had concluded their case on any question, except that of defendant’s negligence, at the time of the dismissal, it is not necessary to consider the question of contributory negligence.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.'

Neglia v. Lielouka, 32 Misc. 707, 65 N.Y.S. 500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

32 Misc. 707 (Neglia v. Lielouka) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related