Vincent-Wilday, Inc. v. Strait

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vincent-Wilday, Inc. v. Strait

273 A.D. 1054, 79 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5945

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

DecidedMay 12, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 1054 (Vincent-Wilday, Inc. v. Strait) 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

Vincent-Wilday, Inc. v. Strait, 273 A.D. 1054, 79 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and motion denied, without costs, and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Defendant may appeal from the [1055]*1055order herein. (Cullen v. Uptegrove, 101 App. Div. 147; O’Reilly v. New York Central R. R. Co., 240 App. Div. 1009.) The defendant was competent to testify as to his past and present condition and as to his ability to work without being caused pain. His testimony thereon was uncontradicted. The reasons assigned by the County Judge for granting the motion were not justified on the evidence. All concur. (The order grants plaintiff’s motion for a new trial unless defendant stipulates to reduce the verdict in favor of him on his counterclaim, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCum, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and motion denied, without costs, and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Defendant may appeal from the [1055]*1055order herein. (Cullen v. Uptegrove, 101 App. Div. 147; O’Reilly v. New York Central R. R. Co., 240 App. Div. 1009.) The defendant was competent to testify as to his past and present condition and as to his ability to work without being caused pain. His testimony thereon was uncontradicted. The reasons assigned by the County Judge for granting the motion were not justified on the evidence. All concur. (The order grants plaintiff’s motion for a new trial unless defendant stipulates to reduce the verdict in favor of him on his counterclaim, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCum, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 1054, 79 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-wilday-inc-v-strait-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack