Rivera v. Rumax Reality Corp.

256 A.D. 277, 9 N.Y.S.2d 880
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 17, 1939·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon the newly-discovered evidence of the president and bookkeeper of the plaintiff’s employer that the plaintiff was at work at the time of the alleged accident and for a considerable time thereafter, the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

[278]*278The determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment and order of the Municipal Court should be reversed and the motion for a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, TJntermyer and Cohn, JJ.

Determination of the Appellate Term and judgment and order of the Municipal Court unanimously reversed, and the motion for a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.

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

Rivera v. Rumax Reality Corp., 256 A.D. 277, 9 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

256 A.D. 277 (Rivera v. Rumax Reality Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. New York City Transit Authority
27 Misc. 2d 666 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1960)