Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912

Rossano v. Kaminsky

Rossano v. Kaminsky
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 16, 1912 · Bijur
134 N.Y.S. 895 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Joseph C. Macro, of New York City, for appellants., Rudolph Marks, of New York City, for respondents.

Rossano v. Kaminsky

Opinion of the Court

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiffs certainly made out a prima facie case of the purchase of vinegar from defendants, introducing the bill receipted by defendants, and showed that the vinegar had been inspected by officers of the state government and found below test, whereupon plaintiffs were sued by the state for the appropriate penalty, and compromised for $50. They further showed that they had notified defendants of the pendency of the action and afforded defendants an *896opportunity to defend the same. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs are to recover. Friedgood v. Kline, 67 Misc. Rep. 428, 123 N. Y. Supp. 247.

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

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