Smoensky v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smoensky v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

91 N.Y.S. 1114

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 1114 (Smoensky v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smoensky v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad, 91 N.Y.S. 1114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The pleadings in this action were oral; plaintiff complaining for personal injuries. The appellant’s attorney claims that the judgment of the lower court is based upon the fact that the plaintiff at first, upon his cross-examination, testified that he did not sign a certain written statement, and that the court for that reason discredited his whole testimony. This does not so .appear. There is nothing from which the court can say upon what ground he rendered "judgment in favor of the defendant. There was sufficient testimony offered on the part of the defendant from which_ the court might have found that the plaintiff sustained no injuries whatever. The only questions at issue were those of fact, and there was a conflict of testimony upon such questions. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The pleadings in this action were oral; plaintiff complaining for personal injuries. The appellant’s attorney claims that the judgment of the lower court is based upon the fact that the plaintiff at first, upon his cross-examination, testified that he did not sign a certain written statement, and that the court for that reason discredited his whole testimony. This does not so .appear. There is nothing from which the court can say upon what ground he rendered "judgment in favor of the defendant. There was sufficient testimony offered on the part of the defendant from which_ the court might have found that the plaintiff sustained no injuries whatever. The only questions at issue were those of fact, and there was a conflict of testimony upon such questions. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smoensky-v-brooklyn-heights-railroad-nyappterm-1904.