Inkelis v. Lehman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Inkelis v. Lehman

2 Misc. 2d 398, 155 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1746

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Misc. 2d 398 (Inkelis v. Lehman) 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

Inkelis v. Lehman, 2 Misc. 2d 398, 155 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was error to receive the unsworn testimony of a 10-year-old infant. However, we are of the opinion that this eyewitness to the accident should have been sworn since her voir dire disclosed sufficient capacity, intelligence and understanding of the difference between truth and falsehood. She was sensitive of the fact that failure to tell the truth would expose her to punishment but her unawareness of the precise punishment or the agency therefor should not have disqualified her. (See Gehl v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co., 156 App. Div. 51; People v. Linzey, 79 Hun 23; Agnew v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 5 N. Y. S. 756, affd. 117 N. Y. 651.)

Since the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the facts adduced at the trial must he construed in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff who is to be accorded [399]*399the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from those facts. (Stein v. Palisi, 308 N. Y. 293; Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N. Y. 584.) Thus construed, the testimony of the 10-year-old eyewitness, if sworn, coupled with that of the adult witnesses, would have made out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the defendant, thereby precluding the dismissal of the complaint. (Cf. Mere v. Hull, 248 App. Div. 935; Collins v. South Boston R. R., 142 Mass. 301, 312, cited with approval in Hammer v. Bloomingdale Bros., 215 App. Div. 308, 312-313.)

The judgment should be reversed upon the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the plaintiff to abide the event.

Pette and Di Giovanna, JJ., concur; Hart, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

It was error to receive the unsworn testimony of a 10-year-old infant. However, we are of the opinion that this eyewitness to the accident should have been sworn since her voir dire disclosed sufficient capacity, intelligence and understanding of the difference between truth and falsehood. She was sensitive of the fact that failure to tell the truth would expose her to punishment but her unawareness of the precise punishment or the agency therefor should not have disqualified her. (See Gehl v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co., 156 App. Div. 51; People v. Linzey, 79 Hun 23; Agnew v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 5 N. Y. S. 756, affd. 117 N. Y. 651.)

Since the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the facts adduced at the trial must he construed in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff who is to be accorded [399]*399the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from those facts. (Stein v. Palisi, 308 N. Y. 293; Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N. Y. 584.) Thus construed, the testimony of the 10-year-old eyewitness, if sworn, coupled with that of the adult witnesses, would have made out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the defendant, thereby precluding the dismissal of the complaint. (Cf. Mere v. Hull, 248 App. Div. 935; Collins v. South Boston R. R., 142 Mass. 301, 312, cited with approval in Hammer v. Bloomingdale Bros., 215 App. Div. 308, 312-313.)

The judgment should be reversed upon the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the plaintiff to abide the event.

Pette and Di Giovanna, JJ., concur; Hart, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Misc. 2d 398, 155 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inkelis-v-lehman-nyappterm-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack