History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pacific Bank v. Worth
220 A.D. 830
N.Y. App. Div.
1927
Check Treatment

Order affirmed, *831■with ten dollars costs and disbursements, upon the ground that the recollection of the trial justice is controlling; but we do not indorse the Special Term’s criticism of the appellant’s counsel or his associate. The appellant had an effective remedy under section 295 of the Judiciary Law, which compels the stenographer to take complete stenographic notes, when the trial is by jury, of each and every remark or comment of the presiding judge during the trial, when requested so to do by either party. Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy and Proskauer, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Pacific Bank v. Worth
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jun 15, 1927
Citation: 220 A.D. 830
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.