Case Name: CUEBAS v. KLEIN et al.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-01-03
Citations: 61 N.Y.S. 923
Docket Number: 
Parties: CUEBAS v. KLEIN, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 61
Pages: 923–924

Head Matter:
CUEBAS v. KLEIN, et al.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
January 3, 1900.)
1. Loss op Property—Evidence op Value.
In an action for the value of a lost watch case, a case of a similar design is admissible in evidence to show value. t
-J¡. Same—Examination op Experts.
The testimony of experts as to the value of a lost watch case, as determined from the value of a case of similar design, is admissible.
3. Same. '
Where an expert had heard testimony as to the similarity between the watch case offered in evidence and the lost case, he may testify as toválue without being asked hypothetical questions.
Appeal from trial term.'
Action by Esteban R. Cuebas against John G. Klein and another for the value of a lost watch case. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMOHS, C. J., and O’DWYER and HASCALL, JJ.
Hays & Greenbaum, for appellants.
Henry Major, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. We think it was proper to allow plaintiff to identify and admit in evidence a certain design, which the witness swore was similar to the design of' the lost watch. Under the circumstances, it was about the best testimony that could be produced upon the question. It was also-proper to allow experts to testify as to the value of such case, basing their opinion upon the design identified by plaintiff. Ho hypothetical question upon this feature of the case was necessary. The witness-heard all of plaintiff's testimony, and saw the design identified by plaintiff, and therefore had the right to testify as to the value of the lost watch case. McCollum v. Seward, 62 N. Y. 316; Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 178.
Ho error was committed, and judgment must be affirmed, with costs.