Summary
In Jobman v Hogan Sons (216 App. Div. 736, affd 243 N.Y. 581), we affirmed, without opinion, an order of the Appellate Division which affirmed a judgment for plaintiff, where the trial court charged that employees of defendant not connected with the accident were interested witnesses and where exception was taken.
Summary of this case from Coleman v. New York City Transit AuthorityOpinion
March, 1926.
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.
Present — Clarke, P.J., Dowling, Merrell, Finch and McAvoy, JJ.; Clarke, P.J., and Dowling, J., dissent.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, pursuant to section 106 of the Civil Practice Act.
I dissent upon the ground that, in my opinion, the record fails to disclose any proof of negligence on the part of the defendant, and, further, because of the error of the court in charging as a matter of law that witnesses employed by Hogan Sons, Inc., and not connected in any way with the happening of the accident, were interested witnesses. ( Hoffman v. Florida East Coast Hotel Co., 187 App. Div. 146.) Clarke, P.J., concurs.