Sheedy v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheedy v. City of New York

202 A.D. 760

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

DecidedMay 15, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 A.D. 760 (Sheedy v. City of New York) 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

Sheedy v. City of New York, 202 A.D. 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the. law, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that it was error for the trial court to receive the testimony of the witnesses O’Toole and Abruzzo in regard to the alleged conversation with some person in the corporation counsel’s office, unknown to them, and whose voice they did not recognize or identify. Kelly, Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur; Blaekmar, P. J., dissents upon the ground that all that was necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to establish a waiver was. that the conversation over the telephone was with the corporation counsel’s office, without identifying the [761]*761particular person with whom the witnesses talked. The evidence supports a finding that the conversation was with that office. Therefore, whether the attendance of the witness before the comptroller was waived was a question of fact for the jury.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the. law, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that it was error for the trial court to receive the testimony of the witnesses O’Toole and Abruzzo in regard to the alleged conversation with some person in the corporation counsel’s office, unknown to them, and whose voice they did not recognize or identify. Kelly, Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur; Blaekmar, P. J., dissents upon the ground that all that was necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to establish a waiver was. that the conversation over the telephone was with the corporation counsel’s office, without identifying the [761]*761particular person with whom the witnesses talked. The evidence supports a finding that the conversation was with that office. Therefore, whether the attendance of the witness before the comptroller was waived was a question of fact for the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D. 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheedy-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack