Scotto v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scotto v. Goldman

219 A.D. 748

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1927·Published

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.

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

Pincite

219 A.D. 748 (Scotto v. Goldman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related