Schildkraut v. Paino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schildkraut v. Paino

238 A.D. 846

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 846 (Schildkraut v. Paino) 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

Schildkraut v. Paino, 238 A.D. 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. There is no decision; therefore, the judgment herein in its present form may not be sustained. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 440 and 441; Nelson v. Ryan, 222 App. Div. 754; Samuel v. Bastress, 231 id. 867; appeal dismissed, 256 N. Y. 667.) The plaintiff presented a prima facie case for an accounting if certain of the oral testimony were credited in connection with the documentary proof. The scope of his proof as a basis for an accounting was unduly restricted by the rulings of the trial court. There should be a new trial before another Special Term justice, at which time the credit to be accorded to the testimony may be- determined and appropriate findings made. . Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. There is no decision; therefore, the judgment herein in its present form may not be sustained. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 440 and 441; Nelson v. Ryan, 222 App. Div. 754; Samuel v. Bastress, 231 id. 867; appeal dismissed, 256 N. Y. 667.) The plaintiff presented a prima facie case for an accounting if certain of the oral testimony were credited in connection with the documentary proof. The scope of his proof as a basis for an accounting was unduly restricted by the rulings of the trial court. There should be a new trial before another Special Term justice, at which time the credit to be accorded to the testimony may be- determined and appropriate findings made. . Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schildkraut-v-paino-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack