Rinaldo v. Manhattan Railway Co.

New York Supreme Court

Rinaldo v. Manhattan Railway Co.

34 N.Y.S. 1147, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 623, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 879

DecidedJune 14, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1147 (Rinaldo v. Manhattan Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rinaldo v. Manhattan Railway Co., 34 N.Y.S. 1147, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 623, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 879 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After an examination of the evidence in this case it seems to us apparent that it does not justify the awards which have been made, either for rental damage or for fee damage. It seems to be doubtful whether, from the evidence, any such damage has been sustained. The judgment seems to rest upon inference rather than upon proof. We have endeavored to ascertain from the evidence some basis upon which a reduced amount might be awarded; but we have been unable to arrive at any conclusion based upon such evidence. It seems hardly necessary to discuss in detail the evidence, for the purpose of showing the particular points in which it is defective, as it seems to us, upon a consideration thereof, that it has little or no probative force. We are of opinion that the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

After an examination of the evidence in this case it seems to us apparent that it does not justify the awards which have been made, either for rental damage or for fee damage. It seems to be doubtful whether, from the evidence, any such damage has been sustained. The judgment seems to rest upon inference rather than upon proof. We have endeavored to ascertain from the evidence some basis upon which a reduced amount might be awarded; but we have been unable to arrive at any conclusion based upon such evidence. It seems hardly necessary to discuss in detail the evidence, for the purpose of showing the particular points in which it is defective, as it seems to us, upon a consideration thereof, that it has little or no probative force. We are of opinion that the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1147, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 623, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rinaldo-v-manhattan-railway-co-nysupct-1895.