Full text
Rose Sorrin v. Frank W. Fierson, Doing Business as Frank Electric Co., and Thomas Parrano, Doing Business under the Name of Hotel Grant
Defendants Fiersón and Rosenthal, in withdrawing their motion to dismiss the complaint, conceded sufficiency of plaintiffs’ proof, and the verdict, in turn, imported that those defendants were the primary wrongdoers. (Seeman v. Levine, 205 N. Y. 514, 517; Stevens v. South Bay Cons. Water Co., 228 App. Div. 851; Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Constr.
Corp., 290 N. Y. 145, 155; Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App. Div. 354, affd. 185 N. Y. 580; Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, 273 App. Div. 414, affd. 298 N. Y. 686; Dolnick v. Donner Lumber Corp., 275 App. Div. 954.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.