Newman v. Seifter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. Seifter

131 A.D. 151, 115 N.Y.S. 211, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 756

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D. 151 (Newman v. Seifter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newman v. Seifter, 131 A.D. 151, 115 N.Y.S. 211, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

Error is claimed in the admission of evidence of the services of counsel in vacating the attachment as an item qf damage. Although the trial Judge permitted himself to be harassed with 40 or more crude and repetitious objections to such evidence, instead of stopping them, the precise objection now urged was not presented, viz., that such expense was “ special damage ” and not pleaded (Strang v. Whitehead, 12 Wend. 64; Blynn v. Smith, 22 N. Y. St. Repr. 69). This objection is highly technical and has to be presented with precision like all special or technical objections. To loosely object that the evidence cannot be given under the complaint, or that such damage is not included- in it, is too general. It does not point out to the court any precise objection. It was the duty of the attorney for the defendant to point out to the court that there is a rule of pleading that all special damage has to be specially pleaded, item by item, in order to be proved, and show that the damage came under that head.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Rich, J., concurred; Woodward, Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred in result.

Judgment and order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

Error is claimed in the admission of evidence of the services of counsel in vacating the attachment as an item qf damage. Although the trial Judge permitted himself to be harassed with 40 or more crude and repetitious objections to such evidence, instead of stopping them, the precise objection now urged was not presented, viz., that such expense was “ special damage ” and not pleaded (Strang v. Whitehead, 12 Wend. 64; Blynn v. Smith, 22 N. Y. St. Repr. 69). This objection is highly technical and has to be presented with precision like all special or technical objections. To loosely object that the evidence cannot be given under the complaint, or that such damage is not included- in it, is too general. It does not point out to the court any precise objection. It was the duty of the attorney for the defendant to point out to the court that there is a rule of pleading that all special damage has to be specially pleaded, item by item, in order to be proved, and show that the damage came under that head.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Rich, J., concurred; Woodward, Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred in result.

Judgment and order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D. 151, 115 N.Y.S. 211, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-seifter-nyappdiv-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack