Cheul Soo Kang v. Violante

60 A.D.3d 991, 877 N.Y.S.2d 354
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 991 (Cheul Soo Kang v. Violante) 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
Cheul Soo Kang v. Violante, 60 A.D.3d 991, 877 N.Y.S.2d 354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 31, 2007, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The trial court erred in admitting a police accident report into evidence. The report did not qualify for admission pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) because it was not certified, and no foundation testimony establishing its authenticity and accuracy was offered (see DeLisa v Pettinato, 189 AD2d 988 [1993]; Matter of Peerless Ins. Co. v Milloul, 140 AD2d 346 [1988]). Furthermore, the statements in the report attributed to the plaintiff and de[992]*992fendant driver constituted inadmissable hearsay (see Carr v Burnwell Gas of Newark, Inc., 23 AD3d 998, 1000 [2005]; Hatton v Gassler, 219 AD2d 697 [1995]). The error cannot be considered harmless.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Vargas
2025 NY Slip Op 51798(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Clear Water Psychological Services PC v. American Transit Insurance Co.
54 Misc. 3d 915 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2016)
Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Linwood Bates III
130 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
130 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Watch v. Gertsen
126 A.D.3d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Adobea v. Junel
114 A.D.3d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Sanchez v. Steenson
101 A.D.3d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Silvas v. Bridgeview Investors, LLC
79 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Salton
74 A.D.3d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.3d 991, 877 N.Y.S.2d 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheul-soo-kang-v-violante-nyappdiv-2009.