Mattera v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mattera v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.

242 A.D. 694

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1934·Published

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, without costs. We are of the opinion that the defendant should have had its witness in court at the time the case was called for trial; furthermore, the witness not being in court, it was the duty of the defendant’s attorney to'have called the court’s attention to the absence of this witness at the time the case was called for trial. In addition to this, the moving papers fail to show what the missing witness would have testified to if present. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes for reversal and a new trial.

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

Judgment affirmed, without costs. We are of the opinion that the defendant should have had its witness in court at the time the case was called for trial; furthermore, the witness not being in court, it was the duty of the defendant’s attorney to'have called the court’s attention to the absence of this witness at the time the case was called for trial. In addition to this, the moving papers fail to show what the missing witness would have testified to if present. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes for reversal and a new trial.

Mattera v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 242 A.D. 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

242 A.D. 694 (Mattera v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.