From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mestre v. Aluminum Company of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 17, 1944
267 App. Div. 1039 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Opinion

May 17, 1944.

Present — Cunningham, P.J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and Larkin, JJ.


Order reversed as a matter of discretion, without costs of this appeal to either party, and plaintiff's motion denied, without costs, and defendant's motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The plaintiff's cause of action, except for fifteen days in May, 1931, is barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations. Any possible recovery would be for merely nominal damages. The case should not be restored to the calendar for that reason alone.

All concur, except Harris, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance in the following memorandum:

There is no reason to interfere with the exercise of sound discretion by the Special Term. The disposition of the question of damages is a function of a jury; Larkin, J., not voting. (The order grants plaintiff's motion to restore a silicosis action to the trial calendar and denies defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.)


Summaries of

Mestre v. Aluminum Company of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 17, 1944
267 App. Div. 1039 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)
Case details for

Mestre v. Aluminum Company of America

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT MESTRE, Respondent, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 17, 1944

Citations

267 App. Div. 1039 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)