Worm v. McKinley Realty & Construction Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Worm v. McKinley Realty & Construction Co.

97 N.Y.S. 374

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 97 N.Y.S. 374 (Worm v. McKinley Realty & Construction Co.) 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

Worm v. McKinley Realty & Construction Co., 97 N.Y.S. 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWLING, J.

At the close of the testimony, upon motion of the defendant, the complaint was dismissed by the court for failure of proof. The plaintiffs claimed to recover for work performed for the defendant, first, upon buildings situated at 143d street; second, work done at the office of the defendant; third, work done at 140th street and Lenox avenue; and, fourth, work done at 950 Sherman avenue. The plaintiffs claim that the contracts under which the work was performed were made by one Newmark, the president of the defendant. The testimony given by the plaintiffs is very meagre and unconvincing, except as to one item. As to that there is testimony that the plaintiffs were requested by the defendant’s president to put into their office a wardrobe, shelvés, a desk, and some brackets, which was. done, and the .value thereof was shown and was in no way disputed. This testimony was sufficient to warrant a judgment for the .plaintiffs, and for the services thus proven they had proved a prima facie cas.e, and consequently the dismissal of the complaint was error.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

DOWLING, J.

At the close of the testimony, upon motion of the defendant, the complaint was dismissed by the court for failure of proof. The plaintiffs claimed to recover for work performed for the defendant, first, upon buildings situated at 143d street; second, work done at the office of the defendant; third, work done at 140th street and Lenox avenue; and, fourth, work done at 950 Sherman avenue. The plaintiffs claim that the contracts under which the work was performed were made by one Newmark, the president of the defendant. The testimony given by the plaintiffs is very meagre and unconvincing, except as to one item. As to that there is testimony that the plaintiffs were requested by the defendant’s president to put into their office a wardrobe, shelvés, a desk, and some brackets, which was. done, and the .value thereof was shown and was in no way disputed. This testimony was sufficient to warrant a judgment for the .plaintiffs, and for the services thus proven they had proved a prima facie cas.e, and consequently the dismissal of the complaint was error.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 N.Y.S. 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worm-v-mckinley-realty-construction-co-nyappterm-1906.