From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mironchik v. Sagadahoc S.S. Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 18, 1930
174 N.E. 69 (N.Y. 1930)

Opinion

Argued October 9, 1930

Decided November 18, 1930

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Dix W. Noel and Cleland R. Neal for appellant.

Harold R. Medina and Charles Winkelman for respondent.


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.


Summaries of

Mironchik v. Sagadahoc S.S. Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 18, 1930
174 N.E. 69 (N.Y. 1930)
Case details for

Mironchik v. Sagadahoc S.S. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK MIRONCHIK, Respondent, v. SAGADAHOC STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 18, 1930

Citations

174 N.E. 69 (N.Y. 1930)
174 N.E. 69

Citing Cases

People v. Goedkoop

He urges in the first instance that the chain of identification of the sample was not established, as…

J. W. Mays, Inc. v. Glen Oaks Shopping Center

Appellant was unduly restricted in the examination of its witness Bellows, as to conditions which he found to…