Alexander v. Long Island Railroad Employees' Mutual Relief Ass'n

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. Long Island Railroad Employees' Mutual Relief Ass'n

133 Misc. 610, 233 N.Y.S. 5, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 651

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 7, 1929·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the record presented it was error to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. A new trial is, therefore, necessary. For the guidance of the court on such new trial we wish to state that it is our view that evidence as to the telephone conversation between the wife of the deceased and the defendant Long Island Railroad Company was erroneously excluded. (Ratomski v. Quittner, 214 App. Div. 186.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Peters and Frankenthaler, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

On the record presented it was error to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. A new trial is, therefore, necessary. For the guidance of the court on such new trial we wish to state that it is our view that evidence as to the telephone conversation between the wife of the deceased and the defendant Long Island Railroad Company was erroneously excluded. (Ratomski v. Quittner, 214 App. Div. 186.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Peters and Frankenthaler, JJ.

Alexander v. Long Island Railroad Employees' Mutual Relief Ass'n, 133 Misc. 610, 233 N.Y.S. 5, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

133 Misc. 610 (Alexander v. Long Island Railroad Employees' Mutual Relief Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related