Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc. v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc. v. Young

234 A.D.2d 409, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13129

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 409 (Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc. v. Young) 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

Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc. v. Young, 234 A.D.2d 409, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for abuse of process, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated October 20,1995, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to preclude him from using any audio tapes at trial to impeach witnesses. Justice Thompson has been substituted for the late Justice Hart (see, 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to preclude the defendant from using any audio tapes at trial to impeach witnesses is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in holding that the defendant was precluded from using any audio tapes at trial to impeach witnesses on the ground that the defendant secretly recorded conversations he had with the plaintiffs and nonparty witnesses. These tapes are admissible if they are relevant and material (see, DiMichel v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 NY2d 184; Thomas v Fletcher & Sons Auto Repair, 201 AD2d 554; DeCandia v Hudson Waterways, 194 AD2d 314; Kane v Her-Pet Re-frig., 181 AD2d 257) and their admission does not violate the rules of evidence. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for abuse of process, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated October 20,1995, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to preclude him from using any audio tapes at trial to impeach witnesses. Justice Thompson has been substituted for the late Justice Hart (see, 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to preclude the defendant from using any audio tapes at trial to impeach witnesses is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in holding that the defendant was precluded from using any audio tapes at trial to impeach witnesses on the ground that the defendant secretly recorded conversations he had with the plaintiffs and nonparty witnesses. These tapes are admissible if they are relevant and material (see, DiMichel v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 NY2d 184; Thomas v Fletcher & Sons Auto Repair, 201 AD2d 554; DeCandia v Hudson Waterways, 194 AD2d 314; Kane v Her-Pet Re-frig., 181 AD2d 257) and their admission does not violate the rules of evidence. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 409, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breezy-point-cooperative-inc-v-young-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack