Corporations
Victor Rivera, Respondent, v. Rumax Reality Corporation, Appellant
256 A.D. 277·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1939·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Victor Rivera, Respondent, v. Rumax Reality Corporation, Appellant.
First Department,
February 17, 1939.
Robert E. Perm of counsel [Joseph E. Greenberg, attorney], for the appellant.
Mark L. Giller, for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Upon the newly-discovered evidence of the president and bookkeeper of the plaintiff’s employer that the plaintiff was at work at the time of the alleged accident and for a considerable time thereafter, the motion for a new trial should have been granted.
The determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment and order of the Municipal Court should be reversed and the motion for a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.
Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, TJntermyer and Cohn, JJ.
Determination of the Appellate Term and judgment and order of the Municipal Court unanimously reversed, and the motion for a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts to abide the event.