Case ID: misc_124/html/0879-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Feldman, Appellant, v. Klosk Bros. Inc. (a Domestic Corporation), Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    May 7, 1925.
    Trial — conduct of trial — prejudicial remark by trial court after refusal to charge warrants reversal.
    A remark by the trial court, after passing upon a request to charge, to the effect that while an exception might be taken to his refusal to charge, it would not avail the party anything, is prejudicial, and warrants a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.
    Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District, entered in favor of the defendant.
    
      Deiches, Goldwater & Flynn [Monroe Goldwater of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      J. Arthur Hilton, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

It was prejudicial to the rights of appellant for the trial court to state to the jury after passing upon a request to charge You can take your exception and any other - exception you want to. It won’t do you much good.” Because of this, the judgment entered upon the verdict rendered in favor of the respondent must be reversed .and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concur.