From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Czumaj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 15, 1968
29 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Opinion

February 15, 1968

Appeal from the Erie Trial Term.

Present — Williams, P.J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In affirming, we disapprove the court's action in answering the jury's written question without its being presented in open court, but in this case we do not find that doing so was prejudicial. (See Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Di Cesare Monaco Concrete Constr. Corp., 9 A.D.2d 379, 385; Fisher v. Lober, 11 A.D.2d 645; Gundersen v. All America Commerce Corp., 275 App. Div. 572; 8 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§ 57:22, 58.3; 1 N.Y. P J I 6).


Summaries of

Johnson v. Czumaj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 15, 1968
29 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)
Case details for

Johnson v. Czumaj

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM K. JOHNSON et al., Appellants, v. EMMA CZUMAJ, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 15, 1968

Citations

29 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

Maione v. Pindyck

Therefore, any alleged error as to the verdict sheet questions concerning Antonucci was harmless ( see Morton…