Rosen v. Leibowitz Pickle Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosen v. Leibowitz Pickle Works, Inc.

254 A.D. 589, 3 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6679

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 589 (Rosen v. Leibowitz Pickle Works, Inc.) 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

Rosen v. Leibowitz Pickle Works, Inc., 254 A.D. 589, 3 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

On the trial of this negligence action the plaintiffs did not have a fair opportunity to present their evidence to the court and jury and the complaint was dismissed as to defend[590]*590ant Leibowitz PicHe Works, Inc. As to defendant Sackeroff, while the plaintiffs had subpoenaed medical witnesses, they had not arrived in court at twelve-forty-five — within fifteen minutes of the usual hour of adjournment. The trial justice declared that the plaintiffs had rested and refused opportunity to reopen. As a result the verdicts against Sackeroff were inadequate. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and in the interest of justice and a new trial granted against both defendants, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

On the trial of this negligence action the plaintiffs did not have a fair opportunity to present their evidence to the court and jury and the complaint was dismissed as to defend[590]*590ant Leibowitz PicHe Works, Inc. As to defendant Sackeroff, while the plaintiffs had subpoenaed medical witnesses, they had not arrived in court at twelve-forty-five — within fifteen minutes of the usual hour of adjournment. The trial justice declared that the plaintiffs had rested and refused opportunity to reopen. As a result the verdicts against Sackeroff were inadequate. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and in the interest of justice and a new trial granted against both defendants, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 589, 3 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-leibowitz-pickle-works-inc-nyappdiv-1938.