Reidy v. Casazza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reidy v. Casazza

18 A.D.2d 1071, 239 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845

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

DecidedApril 30, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1071 (Reidy v. Casazza) 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

Reidy v. Casazza, 18 A.D.2d 1071, 239 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term reversing order of Municipal Court setting aside verdict in favor of plaintiff as against the weight of evidence and directing [1072]*1072a new trial unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts; order of Municipal Court reinstated; and trial directed to be held in Civil Court, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Any claim that plaintiff might have for money loaned would be barred by the Statute of Limitations. To avoid this, plaintiff sought to establish a claim that defendant fraudulently induced her to invest in his business. As defendant is a physician, it is difficult to see how an investment could be made in his business. In addition, there was no proof of what return was to be had on the investment. In short, all the proof substantiated was a loan and not an investment. The proof also fell far short of establishing her claim for fraud in a number of other particulars. The trial court was correct in his determination that he was obliged to set the verdict aside. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term reversing order of Municipal Court setting aside verdict in favor of plaintiff as against the weight of evidence and directing [1072]*1072a new trial unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts; order of Municipal Court reinstated; and trial directed to be held in Civil Court, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Any claim that plaintiff might have for money loaned would be barred by the Statute of Limitations. To avoid this, plaintiff sought to establish a claim that defendant fraudulently induced her to invest in his business. As defendant is a physician, it is difficult to see how an investment could be made in his business. In addition, there was no proof of what return was to be had on the investment. In short, all the proof substantiated was a loan and not an investment. The proof also fell far short of establishing her claim for fraud in a number of other particulars. The trial court was correct in his determination that he was obliged to set the verdict aside. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1071, 239 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reidy-v-casazza-nyappdiv-1963.