Robinson v. McCoach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. McCoach

230 A.D. 792

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 A.D. 792 (Robinson v. McCoach) 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

Robinson v. McCoach, 230 A.D. 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Rich and Seudder, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial upon the following grounds: The cross-examination of the witness Grenis at folios 246 to 255, and the summation of plaintiff’s counsel at folios 439 to 444 relating to whether or not the defendant was protected by an undertaking against any judgment which might be rendered against him, constitute such error as requires a new trial, and which error, we are of opinion, could not be cured by the charge of the trial court at folios 494 to 495. (Wildrick v. Moore, 66 Hun, 630; Manigold v. Black River Traction Co., 81 App. Div. 381; Haigh v. Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elevator Co., 123 id. 376; Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 id. 747; Donnelly v. Younglove Lamber Co., 140 id. 846; Branoner v. Traitel Marble Co., 144 id. 569; Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507; O’Brien v. Hencken & Willenbrock Co., 172 App. Div. 142; Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479; Rodzborski v. American Sugar Refining Co., 210 id. 262.)

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Rich and Seudder, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial upon the following grounds: The cross-examination of the witness Grenis at folios 246 to 255, and the summation of plaintiff’s counsel at folios 439 to 444 relating to whether or not the defendant was protected by an undertaking against any judgment which might be rendered against him, constitute such error as requires a new trial, and which error, we are of opinion, could not be cured by the charge of the trial court at folios 494 to 495. (Wildrick v. Moore, 66 Hun, 630; Manigold v. Black River Traction Co., 81 App. Div. 381; Haigh v. Edelmeyer & Morgan Hod Elevator Co., 123 id. 376; Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 131 id. 747; Donnelly v. Younglove Lamber Co., 140 id. 846; Branoner v. Traitel Marble Co., 144 id. 569; Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507; O’Brien v. Hencken & Willenbrock Co., 172 App. Div. 142; Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479; Rodzborski v. American Sugar Refining Co., 210 id. 262.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D. 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-mccoach-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack