Cook v. Gillot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cook v. Gillot

249 A.D. 830, 292 N.Y.S. 396, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9903

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 830 (Cook v. Gillot) 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

Cook v. Gillot, 249 A.D. 830, 292 N.Y.S. 396, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of minor’s services. Judgment of the City Court of Yonkers reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The verdict must have been based entirely upon the unsworn statement of the infant plaintiff, who, at the time of the trial, was seven years old, and at the time of the accident was five years of age. Although no objection was made to the reception of the infant’s statement, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, there was no other proof in the case in support of the determination. (Scherbach v. Stern, 246 App. Div. 746.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that there was sufficient proof of negligence supporting the statement of the infant in respect to the manner in which the accident occurred. (See Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 80 N. Y. 622.)

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

Action to recover for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of minor’s services. Judgment of the City Court of Yonkers reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The verdict must have been based entirely upon the unsworn statement of the infant plaintiff, who, at the time of the trial, was seven years old, and at the time of the accident was five years of age. Although no objection was made to the reception of the infant’s statement, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, there was no other proof in the case in support of the determination. (Scherbach v. Stern, 246 App. Div. 746.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that there was sufficient proof of negligence supporting the statement of the infant in respect to the manner in which the accident occurred. (See Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 80 N. Y. 622.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 830, 292 N.Y.S. 396, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-gillot-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack