From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prendergast v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1916
172 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)

Opinion

February, 1916.


Order reversed, with costs, motion for new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the court erred in its charge upon the subject of adverse inference permissible to be drawn from the unexplained absence of a witness to a material fact. ( Wade v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 App. Div. 389, 390; Reehil v. Fraas, 129 id. 563, 566.) Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Jenks, P.J., dissented upon the ground that the instructions in question as made at folios 652, 653 and 672 did not constitute capital error.


Summaries of

Prendergast v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1916
172 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)
Case details for

Prendergast v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company

Case Details

Full title:Carol Prendergast, Appellant, v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1916

Citations

172 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)