Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904

Warshawsky v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad

Warshawsky v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 23, 1904 · Freedman
86 N.Y.S. 748 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Bayard H. Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, for appellant., Max D. Steuer, for respondents.

Warshawsky v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad

Opinion of the Court

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Assuming that the case as made upon the trial was one for the jury, the judgment cannot be sustained, because the-damages were inadequately proved. The son of one of the plaintiffs, who was called to testify as to the repairs done to the wagon, was not qualified as to the reasonable value of the necessary repairs, and his testimony as to the cost alone was insufficient. Volkmar v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 28 Misc. Rep. 141, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1021. Moreover, it was not shown that the horse for the value of which a recovery was had died as a result of the accident.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.