Bellino v. Bellino Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bellino v. Bellino Construction Co.

75 A.D.2d 630, 427 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095

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

DecidedApril 28, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 630 (Bellino v. Bellino Construction Co.) 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

Bellino v. Bellino Construction Co., 75 A.D.2d 630, 427 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a series of promissory notes, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 20, 1979, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $20,000. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Critical to defendant’s counterclaims had been the date upon which its work at the Fishkill construction site had ended. Consequently, the exclusion from evidence of a letter by plaintiffs’ counsel admitting that defendant had continued its work there through January 18, 1974, constituted reversible error. Admissions by counsel, as by any other agent, are admissible against a party provided that the statements had been made by the attorney while acting in his authorized capacity. (Burdick v Horowitz, 56 AD2d 882; People v Rivera, 58 AD2d 147, affd 45 NY2d 989.) Counsel’s admission at bar was made in a letter sent in an attempt to settle the dispute prior to trial. As settlement negotiations are unquestionably within counsel’s authority this statement was properly admissible into evidence, although not necessarily conclusive against plain[631]*631tiffs. (See People v Rivera, 45 NY2d 989, supra.) That the statement was made during settlement negotiations is immaterial, for while an offer of settlement would be inadmissible, admissions made in the course of such negotiations are not. Consequently, the trial court erred in excluding the letter from evidence and as this bore upon the issue central to the case, reversal is warranted. As this case must now be retried, we further note that an adequate foundation had been laid for the introduction of defendant’s Exhibit G, the summary of bills and disbursements kept by the corporation in its regular course of business. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a series of promissory notes, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 20, 1979, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $20,000. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Critical to defendant’s counterclaims had been the date upon which its work at the Fishkill construction site had ended. Consequently, the exclusion from evidence of a letter by plaintiffs’ counsel admitting that defendant had continued its work there through January 18, 1974, constituted reversible error. Admissions by counsel, as by any other agent, are admissible against a party provided that the statements had been made by the attorney while acting in his authorized capacity. (Burdick v Horowitz, 56 AD2d 882; People v Rivera, 58 AD2d 147, affd 45 NY2d 989.) Counsel’s admission at bar was made in a letter sent in an attempt to settle the dispute prior to trial. As settlement negotiations are unquestionably within counsel’s authority this statement was properly admissible into evidence, although not necessarily conclusive against plain[631]*631tiffs. (See People v Rivera, 45 NY2d 989, supra.) That the statement was made during settlement negotiations is immaterial, for while an offer of settlement would be inadmissible, admissions made in the course of such negotiations are not. Consequently, the trial court erred in excluding the letter from evidence and as this bore upon the issue central to the case, reversal is warranted. As this case must now be retried, we further note that an adequate foundation had been laid for the introduction of defendant’s Exhibit G, the summary of bills and disbursements kept by the corporation in its regular course of business. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 630, 427 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellino-v-bellino-construction-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack