
    (164 App. Div. 417)
    KOLACKI v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    November 20, 1914.)
    Tbial (§ 108%,)—Conduct of Counsel—Examination of Jubobs—Extent.
    The action of counsel for plaintiff in asking the jurors if they were interested in an employers’ liability insurance company defending the case is reversible error.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, set Trial, Dec. Dig. § 108%.*]
    Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
    Action by John IColacki, administrator of Michael IColacki, deceased, against the American Sugar Refining Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
    Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, CARR, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.
    B. L. Pettigrew, of New York City, for appellant.
    Vine H. Smith, of New York City, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 tc date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

Without regard to the other points raised by appellant, this judgment and order must be reversed, because of the improper statement by plaintiff’s counsel in asking if the jurors were interested in the Employers’ Liability Insurance Company,” which is "defending this case.” Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479, 95 N. E. 10, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 321; Akin v. Lee, 206 N. Y. 20, 99 N. E. 85, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 947; Rodzborski v. American Sugar Refining Co., 210 N. Y. 262, 104 N. E. 616. The fact of a defense by the insurance company was thus pointedly injected into the trial at its threshold. It had even less excuse than the instances where the disclosure of such an interest by a casualty company came out in the course of the examination of a witness.

The judgment and order are therefore reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and a new trial granted.  