Rosen v. Leibowitz Pickle Works, Inc.

254 A.D. 589, 3 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6679
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rosen v. Leibowitz Pickle Works, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 257 A.D. 855

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

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).

254 A.D. 589 (Rosen v. Leibowitz Pickle Works, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.