Case Name: David H. Carroll, Resp't, v. Ann T. O'Shea, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-02-06
Citations: 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: David H. Carroll, Resp’t, v. Ann T. O’Shea, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 51
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
David H. Carroll, Resp’t, v. Ann T. O’Shea, App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed February 6, 1893.)
1. Appeal — Exceptions.
An exception to the admission of evidence is not available on appeal where the ground of the objection thereto was not stated.
2. Dismissal qe complaint — Sufficiency oe evidence.
Any defect in the proof at the time of the denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint on plaintiff’s evidence may be cured by evidence adduced by either party thereafter, and a failure to renew the motion is a concession of the sufficiency of the evidence.
3. Appeal — New trial.
No appeal lies to the common pleas from an order of the city court refusing a new trial.
Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the city court of New York, affirming a judgment for plaintiff which was entered upon the verdict of a jury.
Action to recover broker’s commissions on the sale of real estate.
Frederick Hemming (Waldorf H. Phillips, of counsel), for resp’t; Fellows, Gray & Hartman, for app’lts.
Affirming 46 St. Rep., 297.

Opinion:
Bischoff, J.
Neither of defendant's exceptions to the admission of evidence is available on appeal, because the ground of the objection is not stated. Cruikshank v. Gordon, 118 N. Y., 178; 28 St. Rep., 784.
Any defect in the proof when plaintiff rested could be and was cured by evidence adduced by either party after denial of defendant's motion for dismissal of the complaint, S. & S. P. R. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y., 102, 112; Tiffany v. St. John, 65 id., 315, 317; Painton v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 83 id., 7; and defendant's failure to renew the motion, or to ask that a verdict be directed in his favor, conceded the sufficiency of the evidence for submission to the jury. Barrett v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 628; Schwinger v. Raymond, 105 N. Y., 648; 7 St. Rep., 544.
The case contains no order denying defendant's motion on the minutes for a new trial, and an exception only to the denial of such a motion is ineffectual for any purpose. Matthews v. Mayberg, 63 N. Y., 656; Boos v. World Mut. L. Ins. Co., 64 id., 236.
Besides, no appeal lies to this court from an order of the city court refusing a new trial. Code Civ. Pro., § 3191; Wilmore v. Flack, 96 N. Y., 512; Smith v. Pryor, 16 Daly, 169; 30 St. Rep., 553.
The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
Daly, Ch. J., and Pryor, J., concur.