Koropjeck v. Bohack
Koropjeck v. Bohack
160 A.D. 924
Opinion of the Court
No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. ; Ingraham, P. J., and McLaughlin, J., dissented.
Dissenting Opinion
dissent on the ground that it was error to refuse to charge the defendant’s fifth request, which is as follows: “ The fact that Bennett was not called by either side raises no more presumption in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant than it does in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.