Kolacki v. American Sugar Refining Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kolacki v. American Sugar Refining Co.

164 A.D. 417, 150 N.Y.S. 93, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8447

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 164 A.D. 417 (Kolacki v. American Sugar Refining 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

Kolacki v. American Sugar Refining Co., 164 A.D. 417, 150 N.Y.S. 93, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Without regard to the other points raised by appellant this judgment and order must be reversed because of the improper statement by plaintiff’s counsel in asking if the jurors were interested in the Employers’ Liability Insurance Company which is “ defending this case.” (Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. T. 479; Akin v. Lee, 206 id. 20; Bodzborski v. American Sugar Itefining Co., 210 id. 262.) The fact of a defense by the insurance company was thus pointedly injected into the trial at its threshold. It had even less excuse than the instances where the disclosure of such an interest by a casualty company came out in the course of the examination of a witness.

The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and a new trial granted.

Jénks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and a new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam:

Without regard to the other points raised by appellant this judgment and order must be reversed because of the improper statement by plaintiff’s counsel in asking if the jurors were interested in the Employers’ Liability Insurance Company which is “ defending this case.” (Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. T. 479; Akin v. Lee, 206 id. 20; Bodzborski v. American Sugar Itefining Co., 210 id. 262.) The fact of a defense by the insurance company was thus pointedly injected into the trial at its threshold. It had even less excuse than the instances where the disclosure of such an interest by a casualty company came out in the course of the examination of a witness.

The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and a new trial granted.

Jénks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and a new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A.D. 417, 150 N.Y.S. 93, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kolacki-v-american-sugar-refining-co-nyappdiv-1914.