Case Name: Louis Treuhaft, Respondent, v. Moritz Bender et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of S. & M. Bender, Appellants; Julius Treuhaft, an Infant, by Hattie Treuhaft, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Moritz Bender et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of S. & M. Bender, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-03-24
Citations: 233 N.Y. 556
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louis Treuhaft, Respondent, v. Moritz Bender et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of S. & M. Bender, Appellants. Julius Treuhaft, an Infant, by Hattie Treuhaft, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Moritz Bender et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of S. & M. Bender, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 233
Pages: 556–557

Head Matter:
Louis Treuhaft, Respondent, v. Moritz Bender et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of S. & M. Bender, Appellants. Julius Treuhaft, an Infant, by Hattie Treuhaft, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Moritz Bender et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of S. & M. Bender, Appellants.
Negligence — motor vehicles — injury to boy from being struck by automobile.
Treuhaft v. Bender, 193 App. Div. 666, affirmed.
Treuhaft v. Bender, 194 App. Div. 916, affirmed.
(Argued March 8, 1922;
decided March 24, 1922.)
Appeal, in each of the above-entitled actions, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 17, 1920, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The first action was by a father to recover damages for loss of services of his son, an infant, arising from personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the son through the negligence of defendants, and the second action was by the son to recover for such injuries. The boy, while crossing Broadway, between Ellery and Fayette streets, in the borough of Brooklyn, was struck by defendants’ automobile and received the injuries complained of.
Edwin M. Otterbourg and Charles A. Houston for appellants.
Gilbert D. Steiner for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment in each case affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hogan, Cardozo, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Hiscock, Ch. J., Pound and McLaughlin, JJ.