Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Mary R. Moroney, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant, 1908 — 190 N.Y. 560 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Mary R. Moroney, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant
190 N.Y. 560·New York Court of Appeals·1908·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
Mary R. Moroney, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.
Moroney v. City of New York, 117 App. Div. 843, affirmed.
(Argued December 20, 1907;
decided January 7, 1908.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second, judicial department, entered March 13, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by defendant’s negligence.
Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Jamest P. Bell and James W. Covert of counsel), for appellant.
Elmer 8. White for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscook, JJ. Dissenting: Edward T. Bartlett, J.