Opinion · Nylaw New York

GLOSHINSKY v. BERGEN MILK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 254 App. Div. 658 (1938)

JOSEPHINE GLOSHINSKY, Individually & LAWRENCE GLOSHINSKY, an Infant, bySaid JOSEPHINE GLOSHINSKY, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondents, v. BERGENMILK Transp. Co. & FRANK MEYER, Appellants, Impleaded withAnother, Defendant., 254 A.D. 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1938)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1938-04-08
Topic: general

GLOSHINSKY v. BERGEN MILK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 254 App. Div. 658 (1938) JOSEPHINE GLOSHINSKY, Individually and LAWRENCE GLOSHINSKY, an Infant, bySaid JOSEPHINE GLOSHINSKY, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondents, v. BERGENMILK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and FRANK MEYER, Appellants, Impleaded withAnother, Defendant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. April 8, 1938.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed GLOSHINSKY v. BERGEN MILK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 254 App. Div. 658 (1938). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

GLOSHINSKY v. BERGEN MILK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,254 App. Div. 658(1938)

JOSEPHINE GLOSHINSKY, Individually and LAWRENCE GLOSHINSKY, an Infant, by

Said JOSEPHINE GLOSHINSKY, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondents, v. BERGEN

MILK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and FRANK MEYER, Appellants, Impleaded with

Another, Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

April 8, 1938.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

PresentPage 659— Martin, P.J., O'Malley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; O'Malley, J., dissents on the ground that there is no proof of negligence on the part of the defendant.