From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abrams v. Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 6, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 875 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

February 6, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, BEATRICE K. CASS, J.

Daniel Rosen for appellant.

I. Jonas Speciner and Sol Calvin King for respondent.


The attempt by plaintiff to establish that defendant had allegedly defrauded a purchaser [of an automobile] other than the plaintiff and the testimony and colloquy that ensued with respect thereto, as well as other gratuitous remarks by the court concerning the alleged reason for objections by defendant's counsel, constitute prejudicial error.

In addition, defendant was entitled to an unequivocal charge that absent one of the elements of the alleged fraud, a cause of action in fraud was not made out.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant.

HECHT, J.P., AURELIO and TILZER, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Abrams v. Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 6, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 875 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Abrams v. Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JEROME ABRAMS, Respondent, v. LUXOR LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 6, 1958

Citations

11 Misc. 2d 875 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
172 N.Y.S.2d 617