Cohen v. Ratner — 143 N.Y.S. 1011

Majority

p. 1011

COHEN v. RATNER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 7, 1913.)

Headnote

Teial (§ 141*)—Questions of Law oe Fact—Direction of Verdict.

Where, af the close of plaintiff's evidence, he had made out a prima facie ease, and there was no evidence presented by defendants which established any defense, the court should have directed a verdict for plaintiff.

^[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 336; Dec. Dig. § 141.*]

Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.

Action by Julius Cohen against Julius Ratner and others. From a judgment for defendants, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, he appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARICE, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

p. 1012

Joseph Goldfein, of New York City, for appellant.

Edward Cahn, of New York City, for respondents.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case he had made out a prima facie case, and there was no evidence presented by the defendants which established any defense. There should, therefore, have been a direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

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