Pretzfelder v. Kahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pretzfelder v. Kahn

281 A.D. 675, 117 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 675 (Pretzfelder v. Kahn) 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

Pretzfelder v. Kahn, 281 A.D. 675, 117 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed, and judgment is directed to be entered herein in favor of the defendant, with costs. It is obvious that the plaintiff has suffered only a single injury. She is not entitled to double satisfaction. Where the plaintiff has already been recompensed in her negligence action against the active wrongdoer and executed a general release, the niceties of legal theory may not be employed to support a second recovery in contract for the same injury as against the defendant in this action (see Matter of Parchefsky v. ICroll Bros., 267 X. Y. 410; Gavin v. Malherbe, 264 N. Y. 403; Milks v. Mclver, 264 N. Y. 267; Dahlstrom v. Gemunder, 198 N. Y. 449; Lord v. Tiffany, 98 X. Y. 412, and Rector of St. James Church v. City of New York, 261 App. Div. 614). Present — Peck-, P. J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed, and judgment is directed to be entered herein in favor of the defendant, with costs. It is obvious that the plaintiff has suffered only a single injury. She is not entitled to double satisfaction. Where the plaintiff has already been recompensed in her negligence action against the active wrongdoer and executed a general release, the niceties of legal theory may not be employed to support a second recovery in contract for the same injury as against the defendant in this action (see Matter of Parchefsky v. ICroll Bros., 267 X. Y. 410; Gavin v. Malherbe, 264 N. Y. 403; Milks v. Mclver, 264 N. Y. 267; Dahlstrom v. Gemunder, 198 N. Y. 449; Lord v. Tiffany, 98 X. Y. 412, and Rector of St. James Church v. City of New York, 261 App. Div. 614). Present — Peck-, P. J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 675, 117 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pretzfelder-v-kahn-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack