Scotto v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scotto v. Goldman

219 A.D. 748

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D. 748 (Scotto v. Goldman) 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

Scotto v. Goldman, 219 A.D. 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to.abide the event. Irrespective of the statute prohibiting the admission of the minor to defendants’ theatre, there was alleged in the complaint (paragraph ninth) a common-law cause of action for negligence. (Dorff v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 82; German v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 107 id. 354.) We, therefore, think it was error to dismiss the complaint upon the opening of counsel. Kelly, P. J., Jayeox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to.abide the event. Irrespective of the statute prohibiting the admission of the minor to defendants’ theatre, there was alleged in the complaint (paragraph ninth) a common-law cause of action for negligence. (Dorff v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 82; German v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 107 id. 354.) We, therefore, think it was error to dismiss the complaint upon the opening of counsel. Kelly, P. J., Jayeox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D. 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scotto-v-goldman-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack