Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Sorrin v. Fierson

Sorrin v. Fierson

275 A.D.2d 1044
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 3, 1949·Published

Opinion

Defendants Fiersón and Rosenthal, in withdrawing their motion to dismiss the complaint, conceded sufficiency of plaintiffs’ proof, and the verdict, in turn, imported that those defendants were the primary wrongdoers. (Seeman v. Levine, 205 N. Y. 514, 517; Stevens v. South Bay Cons. Water Co., 228 App. Div. 851; Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Constr. Corp., 290 N. Y. 145, 155; Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App. Div. 354, affd. 185 N. Y. 580; Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, 273 App. Div. 414, affd. 298 N. Y. 686; Dolnick v. Donner Lumber Corp., 275 App. Div. 954.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.

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

Sorrin v. Fierson, 275 A.D.2d 1044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

275 A.D.2d 1044 (Sorrin v. Fierson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phoenix Bridge Company v. . Creem
78 N.E. 1110 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)
Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Construction Corp.
48 N.E.2d 299 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)
Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc.
82 N.E.2d 585 (New York Court of Appeals, 1948)
Seeman v. . Levine
99 N.E. 158 (New York Court of Appeals, 1912)
Phœnix Bridge Co. v. Creem
102 A.D. 354 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Stevens v. South Bay Consolidated Water Co.
228 A.D. 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc.
273 A.D. 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)