Legal Opinion

Haber v. Paramount Ice Corporation

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 20, 1934PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pound, Ch. J.

The appeal from an order granting a new trial after a judgment of reversal is properly in this court. (New York State Const, art. VI, § 7 [2].) The action was to restrain a private nuisance alleged to exist by reason of the operation of an ice plant. If the Appellate Division had made new findings of fact, this court would not be limited to the review of questions of law. The mere reversal of the findings of fact indicates that the Appellate Division decided on conflicting evidence that such findings were not sustained. Instead of rendering final judgment upon the right of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Forstmann v. Joray Holding Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
  2. Garvey v. . Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1899
  3. Braisted v. Brooklyn and Rockaway Beach RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Goodfarb v. FreedmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. Bandike Associates, Inc. v. B. B. M. Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
  3. Antinelli v. TonerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  4. Gucker v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
  5. Davis-Robinson v. PateeWyoming Supreme Court · 1936

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API