Arico v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arico v. New York Central Railroad

240 A.D. 721

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D. 721 (Arico v. New York Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arico v. New York Central Railroad, 240 A.D. 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The admission of the evidence of the six and one-half year old boy, Rinaldi, without his being required to take the oath as a witness, constituted prejudicial error. (Gehl v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co., 156 App. Div. 51.) There was no other evidence to support the plaintiff’s theory of how the accident happened. Even if there were, we could not say that the jury were uninfluenced by the incompetent testimony. It is difficult to discover any theory upon which the plaintiff may recover, but as further proof may be produced on another trial, in reversing the judgment and order we grant a new trial. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The admission of the evidence of the six and one-half year old boy, Rinaldi, without his being required to take the oath as a witness, constituted prejudicial error. (Gehl v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co., 156 App. Div. 51.) There was no other evidence to support the plaintiff’s theory of how the accident happened. Even if there were, we could not say that the jury were uninfluenced by the incompetent testimony. It is difficult to discover any theory upon which the plaintiff may recover, but as further proof may be produced on another trial, in reversing the judgment and order we grant a new trial. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arico-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack