Gridley v. Wood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gridley v. Wood

180 A.D. 831, 168 N.Y.S. 70, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D. 831 (Gridley v. Wood) 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

Gridley v. Wood, 180 A.D. 831, 168 N.Y.S. 70, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodward, J.:

The action was to recover twenty-one dollars and fifty cents. The defendant admitted plaintiff’s claim, but defended on the ground of an open mutual and current account in which [832]*832the plaintiff was debtor in the amount of five dollars and ninety cents.

One of the defendant’s items was ten dollars and fifty cents for lettering a truck. Evidence of the item was objected to as being barred by the Statute of Limitations and the city judge received it subject to motion to strike out if defendant failed to show his open mutual and current account. The justice seems to have later reserved decision on a motion to strike out until after the close of the case. The appeal involves a questioning of this practice. The County Court affirmed the judgment.

We find no such error as would justify a reversal of this case. Higher courts are disinclined to reverse lay justices’ decisions because of technical errors of practice unless the errors affect a substantial right. It is obvious that the error complained of did not affect the disposition of the case. The issue was one of credibility between the parties. The court seems to have disbelieved the appellant. Hence, whether he had stricken this bit of evidence from the record, or left it there and disbelieved it, the result is the same.

Accordingly the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Woodward, J.:

The action was to recover twenty-one dollars and fifty cents. The defendant admitted plaintiff’s claim, but defended on the ground of an open mutual and current account in which [832]*832the plaintiff was debtor in the amount of five dollars and ninety cents.

One of the defendant’s items was ten dollars and fifty cents for lettering a truck. Evidence of the item was objected to as being barred by the Statute of Limitations and the city judge received it subject to motion to strike out if defendant failed to show his open mutual and current account. The justice seems to have later reserved decision on a motion to strike out until after the close of the case. The appeal involves a questioning of this practice. The County Court affirmed the judgment.

We find no such error as would justify a reversal of this case. Higher courts are disinclined to reverse lay justices’ decisions because of technical errors of practice unless the errors affect a substantial right. It is obvious that the error complained of did not affect the disposition of the case. The issue was one of credibility between the parties. The court seems to have disbelieved the appellant. Hence, whether he had stricken this bit of evidence from the record, or left it there and disbelieved it, the result is the same.

Accordingly the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D. 831, 168 N.Y.S. 70, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gridley-v-wood-nyappdiv-1917.