Outstanding Artists, Inc. v. Kenny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Outstanding Artists, Inc. v. Kenny

258 A.D. 973, 16 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8496

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 973 (Outstanding Artists, Inc. v. Kenny) 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

Outstanding Artists, Inc. v. Kenny, 258 A.D. 973, 16 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action on contract. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on a jury verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The trial judge submitted the case to the jury on alternative issues, (a) whether appellant was the undisclosed principal in a contract made with plaintiff for a theatrical performance, or (b) whether appellant adopted and took over the contract after it was made. The verdict for plaintiff is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence on both theories, and a verdict for appellant could not have been permitted to stand. While the charge of the court may be subject to criticism, the error, if any, was harmless and must be disregarded, since appellant could not have prevailed in any event. (Von Au v. Magenheimer, 126 App. Div. [974]*974257, 269; affd., 196 N. Y. 510; Gotham Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 233 App. Div. 699, 700; Civ. Prac. Act, § 106.) The appellant’s own testimony was most damaging. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Action on contract. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on a jury verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The trial judge submitted the case to the jury on alternative issues, (a) whether appellant was the undisclosed principal in a contract made with plaintiff for a theatrical performance, or (b) whether appellant adopted and took over the contract after it was made. The verdict for plaintiff is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence on both theories, and a verdict for appellant could not have been permitted to stand. While the charge of the court may be subject to criticism, the error, if any, was harmless and must be disregarded, since appellant could not have prevailed in any event. (Von Au v. Magenheimer, 126 App. Div. [974]*974257, 269; affd., 196 N. Y. 510; Gotham Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 233 App. Div. 699, 700; Civ. Prac. Act, § 106.) The appellant’s own testimony was most damaging. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 973, 16 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/outstanding-artists-inc-v-kenny-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack