Luft v. Kaplan

123 Misc. 156, 204 N.Y.S. 802, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 876
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 29, 1924·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The jury having retired and later requested certain information, it was manifestly error for the trial justice, in the absence of counsel and without their consent, to transmit his instructions to the jury through a court attendant. Judgment, therefore, reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Wasservogel, JJ.

Judgment reversed.

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

Luft v. Kaplan, 123 Misc. 156, 204 N.Y.S. 802, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

123 Misc. 156 (Luft v. Kaplan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hyman Reiver and Company v. Rose
147 A.2d 500 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1958)
Finn Hannevig & Co. v. Frankel
219 A.D. 54 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)