Reiss v. Pullman Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reiss v. Pullman Co.

272 A.D.2d 820

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

DecidedMay 5, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 820 (Reiss v. Pullman Co.) 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

Reiss v. Pullman Co., 272 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by defendant, in failing, to make available, for plaintiffs’ use and- occupancy, accommodations in one of defendant’s cars alleged to have been purchased by plaintiffs from defendant, judgment in favor of plaintiffs reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Orders appealed from affirmed, with costs. The verdict is excessive. Moreover, it is our opinion that error was committed in the admission of evidence during the testimony of plaintiffs’ medical witness, which was highly speculative in character, and in permitting plaintiffs’ attorney, in summation, to argue that the jury might assume that defendant’s breach of duty was willful. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by defendant, in failing, to make available, for plaintiffs’ use and- occupancy, accommodations in one of defendant’s cars alleged to have been purchased by plaintiffs from defendant, judgment in favor of plaintiffs reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Orders appealed from affirmed, with costs. The verdict is excessive. Moreover, it is our opinion that error was committed in the admission of evidence during the testimony of plaintiffs’ medical witness, which was highly speculative in character, and in permitting plaintiffs’ attorney, in summation, to argue that the jury might assume that defendant’s breach of duty was willful. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiss-v-pullman-co-nyappdiv-1947.