Malus v. Sperry-Rand Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malus v. Sperry-Rand Corp.

2 A.D.2d 877, 156 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1956·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was error in the charge respecting the failure to call one Haley, but we think the error was not of sufficient consequence to warrant reversal of the judgment and the granting of a new trial. We may not consider the question of privilege since the defendant did not take the necessary steps to develop the evidence or require the submission of the question to the jury by way of request or exception. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Cox, Frank and Bastow, JJ. [See post, p. 967.]

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was error in the charge respecting the failure to call one Haley, but we think the error was not of sufficient consequence to warrant reversal of the judgment and the granting of a new trial. We may not consider the question of privilege since the defendant did not take the necessary steps to develop the evidence or require the submission of the question to the jury by way of request or exception. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Cox, Frank and Bastow, JJ. [See post, p. 967.]

Malus v. Sperry-Rand Corp., 2 A.D.2d 877, 156 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

2 A.D.2d 877 (Malus v. Sperry-Rand Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related