Case Name: Rose Sorrin et al., Respondents, v. Frank W. Fierson et al., Doing Business as Frank Electric Co., Appellants, and Thomas Parrano, Doing Business under the Name of Hotel Grant, Respondent-Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1949-10-03
Citations: 275 A.D.2d 1044
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rose Sorrin et al., Respondents, v. Frank W. Fierson et al., Doing Business as Frank Electric Co., Appellants, and Thomas Parrano, Doing Business under the Name of Hotel Grant, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 275
Pages: 1044–1044

Head Matter:
Rose Sorrin et al., Respondents, v. Frank W. Fierson et al., Doing Business as Frank Electric Co., Appellants, and Thomas Parrano, Doing Business under the Name of Hotel Grant, Respondent-Appellant.

Opinion:
Defendants Fiersón and Rosenthal, in withdrawing their motion to dismiss the complaint, conceded sufficiency of plaintiffs' proof, and the verdict, in turn, imported that those defendants were the primary wrongdoers. (Seeman v. Levine, 205 N. Y. 514, 517; Stevens v. South Bay Cons. Water Co., 228 App. Div. 851; Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Constr. Corp., 290 N. Y. 145, 155; Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App. Div. 354, affd. 185 N. Y. 580; Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, 273 App. Div. 414, affd. 298 N. Y. 686; Dolnick v. Donner Lumber Corp., 275 App. Div. 954.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.