From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reshofsky v. Weisz

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Apr 1, 1907
53 Misc. 602 (N.Y. App. Term 1907)

Opinion

April, 1907.

Thomas Oppenheimer, for appellant.

Rosalie Loew and Travis H. Whitney, for respondent.


The action was brought to recover a balance due on the sale of cigars by the plaintiff to the defendant of the value of $873.85 and the value of a showcase, $50, after crediting on account the sum of $761 admitted to have been paid. The trial justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the balance of $162.85, with costs. At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendant's counsel moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove delivery of several of the items in the bill of particulars. Whether such motion was well grounded or not at the time it was made need not be considered, because the defendant in his testimony admitted the receipt of cigars in the precise amount sued for, thus bringing the case within the rule that a defect in the proof, existing at the time of the making of a motion to dismiss, is cured by evidence afterward adduced by either party. Painton v. Northern Central R. Co., 83 N.Y. 7; Hopkins v. Clark, 158 id. 299, 304; Reade v. Continental Trust Co., 49 A.D. 400, 402; Tobin v. Manhattan Savings Inst., 6 Misc. 110; Moskowitz v. Hornberger, 20 id. 558.

Aside from the point just considered, there is no question in the case except one of the weight of evidence, and upon that question we find no reason for differing with the conclusion reached by the trial justice.

GILDERSLEEVE and ERLANGER, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Reshofsky v. Weisz

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Apr 1, 1907
53 Misc. 602 (N.Y. App. Term 1907)
Case details for

Reshofsky v. Weisz

Case Details

Full title:DAVID RESHOFSKY, Respondent, v . JACOB WEISZ, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Apr 1, 1907

Citations

53 Misc. 602 (N.Y. App. Term 1907)
103 N.Y.S. 718

Citing Cases

Lis v. Pennsylvania Railroad

The question now, however, is not whether the proof was sufficient at the end of the plaintiff's case, but…

Dembitzer v. Gilliam

The motion made by defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case is denied. ( Painton v. Northern Cent. Ry.…