Lange v. Garfunkel

25 Misc. 525, 54 N.Y.S. 993
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 15, 1898·Published

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

The record shows that the defendant did not deny any of the allegations of the complaint, but set up affirmative defenses. Hence, when the case was called for trial, nothing remained for the plaintiff to prove. It is to be conceded that defendant’s admissions upon the trial did not affect the right to the affirmative, but under the state of the pleadings, as disclosed by the return, the affirmative was with the defendant. Under the circumstances, it was reversible error for the trial justice to refuse, as he did, the latter’s request made at the opening of the trial, to [526]*526open and close the case. Conselyea v. Swift, 103 N. Y. 604; Trenkmann v. Schneider, 23 Misc. Rep. 336, and citations.

The judgment must, therefore, he reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Beekman, P. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Lange v. Garfunkel, 25 Misc. 525, 54 N.Y.S. 993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

25 Misc. 525 (Lange v. Garfunkel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conselyea v. . Swift
9 N.E. 489 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Trenkmann v. Schneider
23 Misc. 336 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)