Mironchik v. Sagadahoc Steamship Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Mironchik v. Sagadahoc Steamship Corp.

174 N.E. 69, 255 N.Y. 81, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 712

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 N.E. 69 (Mironchik v. Sagadahoc Steamship Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mironchik v. Sagadahoc Steamship Corp., 174 N.E. 69, 255 N.Y. 81, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 712 (N.Y. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Evidence that the steam winch was in proper condition after the accident and before any repairs were made was erroneously excluded. Though other testimony of similar nature was admitted without objection, we must regard the error as prejudicial, in view of the fact that the trial judge instructed the jury that “ even though you hear this testimony your duty would require you to absolutely disregard it because anything done after the accident is no indication or legal testimony or of any value concerning its condition before or at the time of the accident.”

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Evidence that the steam winch was in proper condition after the accident and before any repairs were made was erroneously excluded. Though other testimony of similar nature was admitted without objection, we must regard the error as prejudicial, in view of the fact that the trial judge instructed the jury that “ even though you hear this testimony your duty would require you to absolutely disregard it because anything done after the accident is no indication or legal testimony or of any value concerning its condition before or at the time of the accident.”

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 N.E. 69, 255 N.Y. 81, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mironchik-v-sagadahoc-steamship-corp-ny-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack