Citation Numbers: 24 Misc. 756
Filed Date: 10/15/1898
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
It was clearly error for the referee to allow, as part of the defendant’s counterclaim, the cost of putting a new roof
In addition to this, errors were omitted in the course of the trial in the admission of evidence. Proof was given of the amount paid out by the defendant for repairs without any evidence being given as to the reasonableness of the amounts so paid. It may also well be questioned whether in some instances there was sufficient proof of the existence of a neglect to repair commensurate with the work done for which the defendant claims reimbursement.
Without adverting to other grounds on which a reversal is claimed, enough appears to call for a new trial, which, under section 1011 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must apparently be had before another referee to be appointed by the court below. It is to be hoped that upon a new trial greater care will be observed by counsel in making their proofs and in observing the rules of evidence.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.