Elmiger v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elmiger v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.

160 A.D. 897, 144 N.Y.S. 1114

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D. 897 (Elmiger v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.) 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

Elmiger v. New York & Queens County Railway Co., 160 A.D. 897, 144 N.Y.S. 1114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, and verdict for defendant unanimously reinstated, with costs. Plaintiff was not corroborated as to the alleged violent starting of the car as he was stepping on the rear platform. Ho one else seems to have seen or felt the ‘1 terrific force ” which [898]*898plaintiff described. Mr. Murphy, who had boarded this car upon the same occasion, and may be considered as favorable to plaintiff, a friend and business associate, could only say, “It is so long ago I could not state positively the manner in which this ear started after I got on and got my seat.” Serious discrepancies in plaintiff’s testimony could hardly fail to tell against him with the jury. Their verdict for defendant does not show prejudice or an erroneous estimate of the weight of testimony. Instead, it may be taken as a proper finding that plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of establishing by the greater weight of evidence the facts necessary for any recovery. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ.

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

Order reversed, and verdict for defendant unanimously reinstated, with costs. Plaintiff was not corroborated as to the alleged violent starting of the car as he was stepping on the rear platform. Ho one else seems to have seen or felt the ‘1 terrific force ” which [898]*898plaintiff described. Mr. Murphy, who had boarded this car upon the same occasion, and may be considered as favorable to plaintiff, a friend and business associate, could only say, “It is so long ago I could not state positively the manner in which this ear started after I got on and got my seat.” Serious discrepancies in plaintiff’s testimony could hardly fail to tell against him with the jury. Their verdict for defendant does not show prejudice or an erroneous estimate of the weight of testimony. Instead, it may be taken as a proper finding that plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of establishing by the greater weight of evidence the facts necessary for any recovery. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D. 897, 144 N.Y.S. 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmiger-v-new-york-queens-county-railway-co-nyappdiv-1913.