Kupferberg v. Central Crosstown Railroad

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kupferberg v. Central Crosstown Railroad

88 N.Y.S. 366

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 19, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 366 (Kupferberg v. Central Crosstown Railroad) 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

Kupferberg v. Central Crosstown Railroad, 88 N.Y.S. 366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There was sufficient testimpny in this case to create a question of fact for the'trial judge to determine as to whether the plaintiffs were free from, and the defendant guilty of, negligence. The criticism of the defendant’s attorney made upon the testimony given as to the value of certain of the articles of property destroyed would be well taken had such testimony been objected to upon the trial, but not only was such testimony admitted without objection by defendant’s attorney, but upon cross-examination he drew out from the witness that the prices put upon the several articles destroyed were not retail, but wholesale, prices, and the whole testimony so given was sufficient to authorize the justice to find that such prices were the value of the goods.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

There was sufficient testimpny in this case to create a question of fact for the'trial judge to determine as to whether the plaintiffs were free from, and the defendant guilty of, negligence. The criticism of the defendant’s attorney made upon the testimony given as to the value of certain of the articles of property destroyed would be well taken had such testimony been objected to upon the trial, but not only was such testimony admitted without objection by defendant’s attorney, but upon cross-examination he drew out from the witness that the prices put upon the several articles destroyed were not retail, but wholesale, prices, and the whole testimony so given was sufficient to authorize the justice to find that such prices were the value of the goods.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kupferberg-v-central-crosstown-railroad-nyappterm-1904.