Carrold v. Blum

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Carrold v. Blum

157 N.Y.S. 7

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 N.Y.S. 7 (Carrold v. Blum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carrold v. Blum, 157 N.Y.S. 7 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is based on the single fact, alleged in the affidavit of defendant at Special Term, that the trial judge was absent from the courtroom during the entire summation of counsel for both sides.

While we are of opinion that the duty of a judge presiding at a Trial Term to be present during the trial is too manifest to require discussion, there is no claim made in this case—and appellant’s counsel has, with commendable frankness, so stated upon the argument— [8]*8that any prejudice has been caused by the judge’s absence. No incident or interruption is referred to or claimed to have occurred during the summation, and no appeal or intent to appeal to the judgment or authority of the court is even suggested.

Under these special circumstances, the absence of the judge has happened to become merely casual, and does not, in our opinion, warrant reversal of a judgment which is otherwise entirely justified by the law and the facts of the case.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is based on the single fact, alleged in the affidavit of defendant at Special Term, that the trial judge was absent from the courtroom during the entire summation of counsel for both sides.

While we are of opinion that the duty of a judge presiding at a Trial Term to be present during the trial is too manifest to require discussion, there is no claim made in this case—and appellant’s counsel has, with commendable frankness, so stated upon the argument— [8]*8that any prejudice has been caused by the judge’s absence. No incident or interruption is referred to or claimed to have occurred during the summation, and no appeal or intent to appeal to the judgment or authority of the court is even suggested.

Under these special circumstances, the absence of the judge has happened to become merely casual, and does not, in our opinion, warrant reversal of a judgment which is otherwise entirely justified by the law and the facts of the case.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.Y.S. 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrold-v-blum-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack