Legal Opinion

Berdieff v. Seymour Argule

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1960PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBernard S. Meyer, J.

This is an action for personal injuries suffered by an infant plaintiff, Nicholas Berdieff, and for expenses and loss of services by his mother, Caroline Berdieff. The answer admits that defendants Seymour Argule, Jerome Gutt and Max Kaplan (hereafter referred to as the “ store tenants ”) do business under the firm name of Ben Kaplan Paints. It is stipulated that they were in possession and control of the store, that Ben Kaplan is the owner of the vacant lot contiguous to the store premises, and that defendants Helen Argule, Edna Gutt and Max Kaplan are the owners of the store premises.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Runkel v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  2. Vaughan v. . Transit Development Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. Mendelowitz v. NeisnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  4. Mayer v. Temple Properties Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1954
  5. Heskell v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1913

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Avron Ex Rel. Avron v. PlummerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API