Tucci v. Interstate Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tucci v. Interstate Contracting Co.

220 A.D. 775

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

DecidedMay 15, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D. 775 (Tucci v. Interstate Contracting Co.) 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

Tucci v. Interstate Contracting Co., 220 A.D. 775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed upon the law and the facts, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict of the jury that defendants, appellants, had abandoned the written contract under seal, under which the work was progressing,' and that they had agreed to employ the contractors to do the work mentioned in the contract as their employees, payable by the day, is contrary to the evidence. We are also of opinion that the judgment and order should be reversed upon the law and a new trial granted, upon the ground that the learned trial court erred in admitting evidence of plaintiff’s alleged impairment of hearing, evidence of such impairment of hearing being inadmissible under the allegations in the complaint. (Kurak v. Traiche, 226 N. Y. 266, and cases cited; Piltz v. Yonkers Railroad Co., 83 App. Div. 29.) Kelly, P. J., Young, Kapper, Lazanskyand Hagarty, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed upon the law and the facts, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict of the jury that defendants, appellants, had abandoned the written contract under seal, under which the work was progressing,' and that they had agreed to employ the contractors to do the work mentioned in the contract as their employees, payable by the day, is contrary to the evidence. We are also of opinion that the judgment and order should be reversed upon the law and a new trial granted, upon the ground that the learned trial court erred in admitting evidence of plaintiff’s alleged impairment of hearing, evidence of such impairment of hearing being inadmissible under the allegations in the complaint. (Kurak v. Traiche, 226 N. Y. 266, and cases cited; Piltz v. Yonkers Railroad Co., 83 App. Div. 29.) Kelly, P. J., Young, Kapper, Lazanskyand Hagarty, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D. 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucci-v-interstate-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack