Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926

Puleo v. Stanislaw Holding Corp.

Puleo v. Stanislaw Holding Corp.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 28, 1926
126 Misc. 372; 213 N.Y.S. 601; 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 576

Counsel

Kevie Frankel, for the appellant., Pettigrew, Glenney & Bovard [L. C. Stryker of counsel], for the respondent.

Puleo v. Stanislaw Holding Corp.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The comment of the court with reference to the accuracy of distances as represented by the photographs was tantamount to an instruction to the jury to find for the defendant. It is a matter of almost common knowledge that photographs may be taken from different angles so as to exaggerate certain distances, or, on the other hand, to make space more compact, but notwithstanding this the judge instructed the jury that photographs cannot exaggerate. Again, the trial .judge in his charge, after having stated to the jury that “ photographs cannot lie,” stated that if the photograph is to be believed the accident could not have happened without the contributory negligence of plaintiff. A fair trial must always be insisted upon. The general tenor of the charge is one of antagonism to plaintiff’s cause.

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

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Lydon, JJ.

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