Case ID: nys_72/html/1095-13.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRODSKY, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Action by Morris Brodsky against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.
    H. A. Robinson (G. Glenn 'Worden, of counsel), for appellant. Isidor Cohn, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Although the evidence 'might well lead to a different conclusion from' rthat reached by the learned justice in the court below, it was", nevertheless, conflicting, and ■there is not a preponderance in defendant’s favor ■sufficiently strong to warrant this court in disturbing the verdict. Judgment affirmed, with ■costs.