Sweeney v. Denney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweeney v. Denney

261 A.D. 881, 25 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7884

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 881 (Sweeney v. Denney) 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

Sweeney v. Denney, 261 A.D. 881, 25 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: Defendants’ rights were prejudiced by the repeated references to some alleged agreement which defendant railroad company was claimed to have made with the American Legion in regard to the speed of its trains. All concur, Crosby, P. J., voting for reversal on the facts as well as the law on the ground that the finding that defendant was negligent in respect to the speed of its train is against the weight of the evidence. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a railroad negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: Defendants’ rights were prejudiced by the repeated references to some alleged agreement which defendant railroad company was claimed to have made with the American Legion in regard to the speed of its trains. All concur, Crosby, P. J., voting for reversal on the facts as well as the law on the ground that the finding that defendant was negligent in respect to the speed of its train is against the weight of the evidence. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a railroad negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 881, 25 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-denney-nyappdiv-1941.