Case Name: DE GRAFFENRIED et al. v. MILLER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-06-03
Citations: 110 N.Y.S. 826
Docket Number: 
Parties: DE GRAFFENRIED et al. v. MILLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 110
Pages: 826–829

Head Matter:
DE GRAFFENRIED et al. v. MILLER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 3, 1908.)
1. Appeal and Error—Harmless Error—Exclusion of Evidence.
Any error in excluding a memorandum from evidence was harmless to the party offering it, where the contents had been testified to.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, §§ 4194-4199.]
2. Same—Findings—Conclusiveness.
A finding upon a disputed question of fact will not be disturbed on appeal. _
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error,. §§ 3983-3989.]
Giegerich, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.
Action by Gertrude De Graffenried and another against Edward Miller, Jr. Erom a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREENBAUM, JJ.
Thornton & Earle, for appellants.
David C. Myers, for respondent.

Opinion:
GREENBAUM,
J. Assuming, without holding, that the memorandum which Mr. Earle testified to as being made in the presence of the defendant's wife and read to her, but which she did not examine or read, was entitled to be marked in evidence, I do not see how its exclusion injuriously affected plaintiffs. The contents of the paper had been testified to, and the marking of the paper in evidence could not strengthen the plaintiffs' position. Defendant's wife denied that the memorandum was made or read in her presence. A question of fact was thus presented; the justice having the contents of the paper before him as testified to by plaintiffs' witness.
If the exclusion of the memorandum does not constitute reversible error, there is nothing left in the case but a disputed question of fact, which was decided in favor of the defendant, and should not be disturbed by this .court. The plaintiffs' witness Earle concedes that the defendant was to have possession by November 4th, and that all repairs agreed upon were to be completed by that time, and defendant testified that he would lease the premises "provided he could get the apartment ready by the 4th of November." One of the issues was as to whether there was a hiring or not.
There is a dispute between the witness Earle, plaintiffs' agent, .and defendant's wife as to the repairs agreed upon to be done; and as-to certain other repairs there is a conflict of testimony as to whether they were finished in time, and also as to whether such as were completed had been properly performed. In my opinion the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.