Dipace v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dipace v. Hertz Corp.

30 A.D.2d 515, 290 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4022

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

DecidedMay 14, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 515 (Dipace v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Dipace v. Hertz Corp., 30 A.D.2d 515, 290 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, so far as appealed [516]*516from, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The verdict in plaintiff’s favor is against the weight of the credible evidence. The receipt in evidence of plaintiff's Exhibit 2, moreover, a photocopy of a mechanic’s report submitted in support of plaintiff’s claim that a defective door was the proximate cause of the death of her intestate, was erroneous and constitutes reversible error. No proper foundation was laid for the receipt of this exhibit identified as a “ type ” of record kept by the defendant-appellant. There was an absence of proof of the source of the exhibit as well as a failure to comply with the statute admitting in evidence copies of records made in the regular course of business (CPLR 4539; Toho Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. v. American President Lines, 265 F. 2d 418). Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

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

Judgment, so far as appealed [516]*516from, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The verdict in plaintiff’s favor is against the weight of the credible evidence. The receipt in evidence of plaintiff's Exhibit 2, moreover, a photocopy of a mechanic’s report submitted in support of plaintiff’s claim that a defective door was the proximate cause of the death of her intestate, was erroneous and constitutes reversible error. No proper foundation was laid for the receipt of this exhibit identified as a “ type ” of record kept by the defendant-appellant. There was an absence of proof of the source of the exhibit as well as a failure to comply with the statute admitting in evidence copies of records made in the regular course of business (CPLR 4539; Toho Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. v. American President Lines, 265 F. 2d 418). Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 515, 290 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dipace-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack