Gaudino v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaudino v. New York City Housing Authority

23 A.D.2d 838, 259 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4164

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

DecidedMay 18, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 838 (Gaudino v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Gaudino v. New York City Housing Authority, 23 A.D.2d 838, 259 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to abide the event. While plaintiff’s claim is a dubious one at best, it was error for the court over objection to permit the intern to. read the [839]*839history nota in the .hospital record which stated “ that the patient was essentially well until four hours prior to admission and the patient slipped in an elevator." Plaintiff Sixta G andino claimed that she talked to the intern through an interpreter. If this be the fact, the intern could only testify to what the interpreter said and this would be hearsay and inadmissible. (People v. Sing, 242 N. Y. 41.9; Seollo v. Dilbert Bros., 263 App. Div. 1016.) The error was further compounded when the court, on the basis of this testimony, charged that if the accident happened in the elevator the jury must find for defendant. Concur — Botein, P. J., Babin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to abide the event. While plaintiff’s claim is a dubious one at best, it was error for the court over objection to permit the intern to. read the [839]*839history nota in the .hospital record which stated “ that the patient was essentially well until four hours prior to admission and the patient slipped in an elevator." Plaintiff Sixta G andino claimed that she talked to the intern through an interpreter. If this be the fact, the intern could only testify to what the interpreter said and this would be hearsay and inadmissible. (People v. Sing, 242 N. Y. 41.9; Seollo v. Dilbert Bros., 263 App. Div. 1016.) The error was further compounded when the court, on the basis of this testimony, charged that if the accident happened in the elevator the jury must find for defendant. Concur — Botein, P. J., Babin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 838, 259 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaudino-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack