Bates v. Smyth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bates v. Smyth

149 A.D.2d 391, 542 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4404

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 391 (Bates v. Smyth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bates v. Smyth, 149 A.D.2d 391, 542 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In three actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated June 4, 1987, as, upon a jury verdict, (1) apportioned fault in the happening of the accident at 60% for the defendant Smyth and 40% for the plaintiff, and (2) dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Vanguard Holding Corp.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents.

The defendant Andrew Smyth’s arguments in favor of a new trial are not properly before us since he failed to cross-appeal from the interlocutory judgment.

The trial court did not err in excluding a statement allegedly made by the defendant Andrew Smyth to the plaintiff [392]*392Harle Bates in a conversation after the accident. The statement was hearsay and none of the exceptions to the hearsay rule permitted its admission.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In three actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated June 4, 1987, as, upon a jury verdict, (1) apportioned fault in the happening of the accident at 60% for the defendant Smyth and 40% for the plaintiff, and (2) dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Vanguard Holding Corp.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents.

The defendant Andrew Smyth’s arguments in favor of a new trial are not properly before us since he failed to cross-appeal from the interlocutory judgment.

The trial court did not err in excluding a statement allegedly made by the defendant Andrew Smyth to the plaintiff [392]*392Harle Bates in a conversation after the accident. The statement was hearsay and none of the exceptions to the hearsay rule permitted its admission.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 391, 542 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-smyth-nyappdiv-1989.