Opinion
April, 1928.
Judgment and order reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to appellants to abide the event. By the complaint the plaintiff claimed that the window cleaner was in the employment of defendants Goldsmith. The case was submitted to the jury upon that theory. The finding of the jury that the window cleaner was in the employment of defendants Goldsmith was against the weight of the evidence. Lazansky, P.J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.