Legal Opinion

Arwin Sportswear Co. v. Salerno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 15, 1948PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Sections 1120 and 1124 of the Civil" Practice Act were not complied with insofar as the second cause of action is concerned. These provisions are mandatory (Kram v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 238 App. Div. 680). Moreover, there is not a sufficient basis in the record to support the damages awarded in either cause of action. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered on all issues, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur; Dore, J. P., concurs in result.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered on all issues,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kram v. Manufacturers Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Tollin v. EllebyCivil Court of the City of New York · 1974
  2. Clements v. WalkerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API