Babecki v. Charles Kurzon, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Babecki v. Charles Kurzon, Inc.

181 Misc. 11, 46 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2798

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 Misc. 11 (Babecki v. Charles Kurzon, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Babecki v. Charles Kurzon, Inc., 181 Misc. 11, 46 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed

on the law and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to defendant to abide the event. It was error to refuse to permit the defendant to cross-examine the infant plaintiff as to an alleged admission as to the condition of the lights made at a former trial. The defendant could prove what occurred at that trial without producing the minutes. (McRorie v. Monroe, 203 N. Y. 426.) There was no error, however, in charging that O’Brien was operating the car as the servant of defendant. Both sides vouched for his credibility and the defendant produced no one to give a version of his employment different from that to which he testified. In view of the inclusion in the hospital records of a statement that they had been examined by an insurance company, they should not have been admitted with such notation. No opinion.

MacCrate, McCooey and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed

on the law and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to defendant to abide the event. It was error to refuse to permit the defendant to cross-examine the infant plaintiff as to an alleged admission as to the condition of the lights made at a former trial. The defendant could prove what occurred at that trial without producing the minutes. (McRorie v. Monroe, 203 N. Y. 426.) There was no error, however, in charging that O’Brien was operating the car as the servant of defendant. Both sides vouched for his credibility and the defendant produced no one to give a version of his employment different from that to which he testified. In view of the inclusion in the hospital records of a statement that they had been examined by an insurance company, they should not have been admitted with such notation. No opinion.

MacCrate, McCooey and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Misc. 11, 46 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babecki-v-charles-kurzon-inc-nyappterm-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack