Case ID: misc_123/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George F. Secor and Another, Appellants, v. Millard Heyman, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    May 8, 1924.
    Trial — arguments of counsel — action by stockbrokers against customer — prejudicial error for defendant’s counsel to state that many "men are sitting on benches in park because they lost money in Wall street.
    In an action instituted by a firm of stockbrokers to recover against its customer the price of certain stock purchased it was prejudicial error for the defendant’s counsel to state to the jury that “ there is many a man sitting on the benches in the park because he lost his money down in Wall street.”
    Gut, J., dissents.
    
      Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, first district, in favor of the defendant entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    . Philip C. Samuels (Philip C. Samuels and Max Lazarus, of counsel), for the appellants.
    
      Abraham B. Keve, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

In an action instituted by a firm of stockbrokers to recover against its customer the price of certain stock purchased on his behalf, the defendant’s counsel in his summation to the jury said: “ There is many a man sitting on the benches in the park because he lost his money down in Wall street.” This remark was unwarranted and grossly prejudicial to plaintiffs’ rights, and demands a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellants to abide the event.

Wagner and Wasservogel, JJ., concur; Guy, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed.