Sherl v. Ladman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherl v. Ladman

259 A.D. 810, 20 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6787

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 19, 1940·Published

Opinion

The so-called newly-discovered evidence was insufficient to justify the court in setting aside the judgment which was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Under the circumstances, order, granting the motions of the defendants to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence, reversed, with costs and disbursements, and the judgment reinstated. Present —■ Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Cohn, J., dissents and votes to affirm. [See 254 App. Div. 730.]

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

The so-called newly-discovered evidence was insufficient to justify the court in setting aside the judgment which was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Under the circumstances, order, granting the motions of the defendants to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence, reversed, with costs and disbursements, and the judgment reinstated. Present —■ Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Cohn, J., dissents and votes to affirm. [See 254 App. Div. 730.]

Sherl v. Ladman, 259 A.D. 810, 20 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

259 A.D. 810 (Sherl v. Ladman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.