Stein v. Bauman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. Bauman

157 N.Y.S. 10

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 157 N.Y.S. 10 (Stein v. Bauman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stein v. Bauman, 157 N.Y.S. 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1] This case is similar to Thomas B. Carroll v. Max D. Blum, 157 N. Y. Supp. 7, decided at this term, except that it affirmatively appears that the appellant was clearly prejudiced by several unwarranted and improper references during the summation of respondent’s counsel during the absence of the trial judge, and that appellant’s counsel interrupted and protested against such remarks. Although apparently, upon the return of the learned judge to his duties at the conclusion of the summation of counsel, he made some endeavor to remedy the injury which had been done in his absence to appellant’s interests, we hold that under the circumstances the absence of the court was clearly prejudicial.

[2] There is no merit in the contention that appellant’s counsel acquiesced in the judge’s absence by failure to protest against the same. Apart from the fact that it would be difficult to understand to whom or how the protest could be made until the injury was complete, we are unwilling to approve the doctrine that it is the duty of counsel to take affirmative formal steps to secure the attendance of the judge at the trial over which he presides.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs, judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

[1] This case is similar to Thomas B. Carroll v. Max D. Blum, 157 N. Y. Supp. 7, decided at this term, except that it affirmatively appears that the appellant was clearly prejudiced by several unwarranted and improper references during the summation of respondent’s counsel during the absence of the trial judge, and that appellant’s counsel interrupted and protested against such remarks. Although apparently, upon the return of the learned judge to his duties at the conclusion of the summation of counsel, he made some endeavor to remedy the injury which had been done in his absence to appellant’s interests, we hold that under the circumstances the absence of the court was clearly prejudicial.

[2] There is no merit in the contention that appellant’s counsel acquiesced in the judge’s absence by failure to protest against the same. Apart from the fact that it would be difficult to understand to whom or how the protest could be made until the injury was complete, we are unwilling to approve the doctrine that it is the duty of counsel to take affirmative formal steps to secure the attendance of the judge at the trial over which he presides.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs, judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.Y.S. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-bauman-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack