Sewilo v. Lazarus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sewilo v. Lazarus

247 A.D. 855

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 855 (Sewilo v. Lazarus) 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

Sewilo v. Lazarus, 247 A.D. 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The record discloses no evidence from which the jury could find that at the time of the accident the defendant Nowak was an employee of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the evidence is that Nowak was then acting as an employee and agent of the defendant Sewilo who thereby became legally responsible for personal injuries caused by negligent acts, if any, of such agent. There is also proof from which the jury might find negligence by the defendants Lazarus and Nowak which was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. All concur. (The judgments dismissed the complaint as to two defendants in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgments reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The record discloses no evidence from which the jury could find that at the time of the accident the defendant Nowak was an employee of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the evidence is that Nowak was then acting as an employee and agent of the defendant Sewilo who thereby became legally responsible for personal injuries caused by negligent acts, if any, of such agent. There is also proof from which the jury might find negligence by the defendants Lazarus and Nowak which was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. All concur. (The judgments dismissed the complaint as to two defendants in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sewilo-v-lazarus-nyappdiv-1936.