Case Name: Joseph C. Harris, Respondent, v. Landay Bros., Inc., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-10
Citations: 97 Misc. 14
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph C. Harris, Respondent, v. Landay Bros., Inc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 14–18

Head Matter:
Joseph C. Harris, Respondent, v. Landay Bros., Inc., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
October, 1916.)
Evidence — in action to recover commissions — sales — pleading—when judgment entered on verdict reversed.
In an action to recover commissions for selling certain phonographs, defendant claimed that plaintiff’s assignor pretended ‘ • to-get orders from a dealer who was entitled under the schedule ■ of-prices to'cheaper prices than retail dealers were entitled to- and sold the goods to them, thus swelling his commissions and in some eases pocketing the proceeds, but ultimately finding that it had no claim either against the dealer or against the retailers defendant counterclaimed for the value of the goods that it had shipped pursuant to this alleged fraudulent claim. On cross-examination, plaintiff’s assignor admitted that he had collected money from a retailer which he had not turned over to defendant and testified that he could not tell in how many instances this had occurred, but claimed that he had turned over the money to the dealer who was charged with the goods and who was defendant’s supposed customer, but the dealer flatly denied this. Held, that the court’s refusal to permit defendant to impeach plaintiff’s assignor on cross-examination by asking him whether in his employment preceding that by defendant he had collected money belonging to that employer and failed to turn it over was prejudicial error for which a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered on a verdict should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Butte, J., dissents.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Abraham Benedict, for appellant.
Maxwell Arent (George R. Simpson, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Shearn, J.
Plaintiff sues on an assigned claim to recover commissions due one Silverman for selling phonographs. Defendant's claim is that'Silvérman pretended to get orders from a dealer who was entitled under the schedule of prices to cheaper prices than retail dealers were entitled to and then sold the goods to retailers, thus swelling his commissions and in some cases pocketing the proceeds. The defendant, ultimately finding that it had no claim either against the dealer or against the retailers, counterclaimed for the value of the goods that it had shipped pursuant to this alleged fraudulent claim. In one instance, Silverman on cross-examination admitted that he had collected money from a retailer which he had not turned over to the defendant and said that he could not tell-in how many instances this had occurred. He claimed, however, that he had turned over the money to one Davis, the dealer who was charged with the goods and who was defendant's supposed customer. Davis flatly denied this. Obviously, Silverman's honesty and veracity were sharply in issue and of controlling importance. Nevertheless, the court refused to permit the defendant to impeach Silverman on cross-examination by asking him whether in his employment preceding that by the defendant he had collected money belonging to that employer and failed to turn it over. If Silver-man had denied this, the defendant could not have contradicted the answer, but if he had admitted the fact it would naturally have resulted in a verdict for the defendant where the issue turned upon the question of his honesty. The error is manifest and it was prejudicial.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Guy, J., concurs.