From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chudnowsky v. Re-Mo Holding Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 3, 1949
85 N.E.2d 55 (N.Y. 1949)

Opinion

Argued January 5, 1949

Decided March 3, 1949

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, BENVENGA, J.

Murray A. Gordon and Herbert J. Fabricant for appellant.

Louis Susman and Harold A. Diamond for respondents.



Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the evidence presents an issue of fact as to whether the agreement, by which the plaintiff purchased the apartment building in suit, was induced by fraudulent representations of the defendant. No opinion.

Concur: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE and FULD, JJ.


Summaries of

Chudnowsky v. Re-Mo Holding Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 3, 1949
85 N.E.2d 55 (N.Y. 1949)
Case details for

Chudnowsky v. Re-Mo Holding Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH CHUDNOWSKY, Appellant, v. RE-MO HOLDING CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 3, 1949

Citations

85 N.E.2d 55 (N.Y. 1949)
85 N.E.2d 55

Citing Cases

Chudnowsky v. Re-Mo Holding Corp.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for fraud and misrepresentation. She recovered a judgment, upon verdict,…