Pokedoff v. Glatman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pokedoff v. Glatman

284 A.D. 907, 135 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4025

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 907 (Pokedoff v. Glatman) 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

Pokedoff v. Glatman, 284 A.D. 907, 135 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action by plaintiff Lillian Pokedoff to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall from a swing maintained by defendants for the use of guests at their summer rooming house, and by her husband for expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered on a directed verdict in favor of defendants, and from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. No such order is printed in the record. Adel, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial on the ground that a question of fact was presented which should have been submitted to the jury.

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

In this action by plaintiff Lillian Pokedoff to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall from a swing maintained by defendants for the use of guests at their summer rooming house, and by her husband for expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered on a directed verdict in favor of defendants, and from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. No such order is printed in the record. Adel, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial on the ground that a question of fact was presented which should have been submitted to the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 907, 135 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pokedoff-v-glatman-nyappdiv-1954.