BRANDT v. GLOTTSTEIN


19 Misc.2d 785 (1959)

Samuel Brandt, Respondent, v. Albert Glottstein et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department.

October 22, 1959.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Cymrot & Wolin (Arthur N. Seiff of counsel), for appellants.

Katz & Leidman (Harvey L. Strelzer of counsel), for respondent.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.


Per Curiam.

It was error to permit plaintiff to prove items of damages which were not specified in the bill of particulars (Voccia v. Pleasure Boat Co., 239 App. Div. 165, affd. 264 N.Y. 656). There shall be no reference to the fact that plaintiff received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law since such fact is immaterial upon an assessment of damages.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law, without costs, with leave...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases