Caligiuri v. AAA-1 Towing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caligiuri v. AAA-1 Towing, Inc.

266 A.D.2d 133, 698 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12342

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 30, 1999·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about April 12, 1999, which denied the motion of third-party defendant Ramp Chevrolet, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly relied upon the statements of defendant and third-party plaintiff Lee Belli in denying the motion. Although Belli’s statements, as reported in the testimony of plaintiff Caligiuri, were hearsay, they were properly considered by the motion court since they constitute “admissions” by a party to a material fact at issue (see, Reed v McCord, 160 NY 330, 341). Belli’s “admissions” were attributable not only to Belli but to defendant AAA-1 as well, since Belli, an agent and employee of AAA-1, made the subject admissions while engaged in an activity within the scope of his agency authority (see, e.g., Loehner v Simons, 223 AD2d 533, 534). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about April 12, 1999, which denied the motion of third-party defendant Ramp Chevrolet, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly relied upon the statements of defendant and third-party plaintiff Lee Belli in denying the motion. Although Belli’s statements, as reported in the testimony of plaintiff Caligiuri, were hearsay, they were properly considered by the motion court since they constitute “admissions” by a party to a material fact at issue (see, Reed v McCord, 160 NY 330, 341). Belli’s “admissions” were attributable not only to Belli but to defendant AAA-1 as well, since Belli, an agent and employee of AAA-1, made the subject admissions while engaged in an activity within the scope of his agency authority (see, e.g., Loehner v Simons, 223 AD2d 533, 534). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Caligiuri v. AAA-1 Towing, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 133, 698 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

266 A.D.2d 133 (Caligiuri v. AAA-1 Towing, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related