From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borman v. Phipps Estates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 22, 1940
260 App. Div. 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)

Opinion

November 22, 1940.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County, BENVENGA, J.

William L. Shumate of counsel [ Andrews, Baird Shumate, attorneys], for the appellant.

Harold Ira Panken of counsel [ Julius S. Moskowitz, attorney], for the respondent.


The judgment should be reversed for errors in the charge. The court in effect said that the failure of a person to call witnesses or produce evidence under his control permitted the inference that the evidence would be unfavorable to him. This charge is substantially the same as that in Milio v. Railway Motor Trucking Co. ( 257 App. Div. 640) where this court in reversing a judgment for the plaintiff said: "The failure to call a witness within the control of a party may justify giving greater weight to the testimony already in the case, but it never authorizes a jury to speculate as to what the uncalled witness would testify to."

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

MARTIN, P.J., and DORE, J., concur; O'MALLEY and COHN, JJ., dissent.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.


Summaries of

Borman v. Phipps Estates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 22, 1940
260 App. Div. 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)
Case details for

Borman v. Phipps Estates

Case Details

Full title:KAROL BORMAN, Respondent, v. HENRY PHIPPS ESTATES (a Domestic…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 22, 1940

Citations

260 App. Div. 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)
23 N.Y.S.2d 339

Citing Cases

Zausmer v. Suozzi

Thus, the plaintiffs' failure to call these other two persons warrants a construction of the evidence on this…

Rue v. State

As to the nature of the inference which may be drawn, the correct rule seems to be that the jury may construe…