Case ID: ad_216/html/0736-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dowling, J. (dissenting):", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ernest Jobman, Respondent, v. T. Hogan & Sons, Inc., Appellant.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on June 25, 1924, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,500, rendered after a trial at the New York Trial Term, and also from an order entered on August 18, 1924, denying a motion for a new trial.
   Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, pursuant to section 106 of the Civil Practice Act. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Merrell, Finch and McAvoy, JJ.; Clarke, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissent.

Dowling, J. (dissenting):

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.