Friedman v. Rosenberg

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Friedman v. Rosenberg

415 N.E.2d 255, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 921, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 901

DecidedJanuary 28, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 415 N.E.2d 255 (Friedman v. Rosenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friedman v. Rosenberg, 415 N.E.2d 255, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 921, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 901 (Mass. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

1. There is no genuine question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the [922]*922jury’s verdict for the plaintiff. 2. The defendant has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating error in the judge’s preliminary ruling concerning the admissibility of secondary evidence of the contents of a record of the plaintiff’s assignor. That ruling followed a bench conference which was not recorded and which has not been made available to us under Mass.R.A.P. 8(c), as appearing in 378 Mass. 933 (1979). For all that appears, the plaintiffs counsel properly satisfied the judge that the prerequisites to the admissibility of secondary evidence had been met. See Fauci v. Mulready, 337 Mass. 532, 540-542 (1958). An inference to that effect is warranted by the failure of the defendant’s counsel to heed the judge’s admonition that he register his objections (Mass.R.Civ.P. 46, 365 Mass. 811 [1974]) to the particular questions which might be asked concerning the contents of the record.

George S. Chefitz for the defendant. Richard H. Sadowski for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. There is no genuine question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the [922]*922jury’s verdict for the plaintiff. 2. The defendant has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating error in the judge’s preliminary ruling concerning the admissibility of secondary evidence of the contents of a record of the plaintiff’s assignor. That ruling followed a bench conference which was not recorded and which has not been made available to us under Mass.R.A.P. 8(c), as appearing in 378 Mass. 933 (1979). For all that appears, the plaintiffs counsel properly satisfied the judge that the prerequisites to the admissibility of secondary evidence had been met. See Fauci v. Mulready, 337 Mass. 532, 540-542 (1958). An inference to that effect is warranted by the failure of the defendant’s counsel to heed the judge’s admonition that he register his objections (Mass.R.Civ.P. 46, 365 Mass. 811 [1974]) to the particular questions which might be asked concerning the contents of the record.

George S. Chefitz for the defendant. Richard H. Sadowski for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 N.E.2d 255, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 921, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-rosenberg-massappct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack