Legal Opinion

Mintz v. Wipper

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided March 23, 1955Published

1Per curiam

It was error for the court to charge the jury, as requested by plaintiff with respect to the inference to be drawn from the unexplained absence of the defendants or any witnesses under their control. <£ In such circumstances the jury have the right to accept the testimony before them which might have been but was not controverted, and to take it most strongly against the party who might have controverted it but failed to do so. The jury may not, however, infer that such witness would, if called, testify unfavorably to the party who failed to call him.” (Raimondo v. Fairchester Bakers, 265…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Milio v. Railway Motor Trucking Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  2. Perlman v. ShanckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
  3. Raimundo v. Fairchester Bakers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API