¶1Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur; Davis, J., not sitting. Even though there might have been a technical error in the admission of evidence, the verdict *650shows that the defendant was allowed the counterclaim and it, therefore, does not constitute a reversible error.
206 A.D. 649
Sneck v. Loeb
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 15, 1923
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1923-03-15
Decided 1923-03-15