Case ID: ad_274/html/0898-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bertha J. Sangster, Appellant, v. Harry Lefrak et al., Copartners Doing Business as Lefrak Realty Co., Respondents.
   Appeal by plaintiff, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term reversing a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and dismissing the complaint. Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel and Wénzel, JJ., concur; Nolan and Sneed, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and the judgment of the City Court and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: The reversal by the Appellate Term was based on the admission in evidence on the trial of certain declarations of a former employee of respondents. In our opinion, this evidence was admissible and there was no error by the trial court which required a reversal. (Cf. Stecher Lithographic Co. v. Inman, 175 N. Y. 124; Wallace v. Taylor, 204 App. Div. 341; Reed v. McCord, 160 N. Y. 330.) [See post, p. 928.]