Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935

Neuman v. Uris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 3, 1935

244 A.D. 285; 279 N.Y.S. 325; 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5810

Counsel

Bernard Hershlsopf of counsel [Abraham A. Silberberg with him on the brief, attorney], for the appellant Mary Uris., Herbert S. Klein of counsel [George M. Glassgold, attorney], for the appellant Silvie PicciriUi., Sidney M. Wittner, for the respondents.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The jury’s finding that the plaintiff’s proposed customer was “ able ” was against the credible evidence. As bearing upon this issue the defendants were entitled to show that the proposed purchaser had unsatisfied judgments against him and it was error for the court to instruct the jury in substance that this fact was immaterial. The defendants were also entitled to show the exact amount of cash, if any, which the customer had on deposit. We do not treat of other alleged erroneous ruhngs as they will not in all probability arise upon the new trial.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment and orders should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.