Paffen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paffen v. City of New York

176 A.D. 423, 162 N.Y.S. 723, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4706

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 12, 1917·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The record shows a violation of section 295 of the Judiciary Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 30; Laws of 1909, chap. 35), which directs that the stenographer take full notes of the proceedings in each cause tried. In jury trials the stenographer must take each and every remark or comment by the judge during the trial, when requested to do so by either party, together with each and every exception taken to any such ruling and decision, remark or comment by or on behalf of any party to the action. Although frequently such passing remarks may not be of moment, the trial counsel has a statutory right on request to have them taken down. At a later stage in the trial a motion was made to withdraw a juror on account of earlier remarks as to which the recollection of court differed from that of counsel. This leaves us without a'correct record of the original incident. Hence we cannot disregard it, in view of its possible effect on the jury.

The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Carr, J., dissented.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam:

The record shows a violation of section 295 of the Judiciary Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 30; Laws of 1909, chap. 35), which directs that the stenographer take full notes of the proceedings in each cause tried. In jury trials the stenographer must take each and every remark or comment by the judge during the trial, when requested to do so by either party, together with each and every exception taken to any such ruling and decision, remark or comment by or on behalf of any party to the action. Although frequently such passing remarks may not be of moment, the trial counsel has a statutory right on request to have them taken down. At a later stage in the trial a motion was made to withdraw a juror on account of earlier remarks as to which the recollection of court differed from that of counsel. This leaves us without a'correct record of the original incident. Hence we cannot disregard it, in view of its possible effect on the jury.

The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Carr, J., dissented.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Paffen v. City of New York, 176 A.D. 423, 162 N.Y.S. 723, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

176 A.D. 423 (Paffen v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related