Simon v. Ora Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simon v. Ora Realty Corp.

281 A.D. 962, 120 N.Y.S.2d 656

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

DecidedApril 21, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 962 (Simon v. Ora Realty Corp.) 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

Simon v. Ora Realty Corp., 281 A.D. 962, 120 N.Y.S.2d 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The record is without any proof that defendant’s [respondent’s] employee, an unidentified person, was authorized to use the assistance of anyone else, or that such authority may be implied from the duties to be performed. Although plaintiff [infant] had examined defendant before trial, the examination was not used on the trial. Consequently, there was no proof of the duties or responsibilities of the employee, never identified, let alone of any authorization to use assistance. It is not even clear as to how many persons were employed at the premises, an important factor in determining implied authority to use assistants. It was not without significance that plaintiff did not prosecute promptly his appeal from a decision at a trial that terminated just six years ago.

The judgment should be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The record is without any proof that defendant’s [respondent’s] employee, an unidentified person, was authorized to use the assistance of anyone else, or that such authority may be implied from the duties to be performed. Although plaintiff [infant] had examined defendant before trial, the examination was not used on the trial. Consequently, there was no proof of the duties or responsibilities of the employee, never identified, let alone of any authorization to use assistance. It is not even clear as to how many persons were employed at the premises, an important factor in determining implied authority to use assistants. It was not without significance that plaintiff did not prosecute promptly his appeal from a decision at a trial that terminated just six years ago.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 962, 120 N.Y.S.2d 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-ora-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack