Goodkin v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

241 A.D. 737
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1934·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Exhibit C for identification was not admissible in evidence. It contained opinions which were not records of an act, transaction, occurrence or event made in the course of the doctor’s profession. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Carswell and Scudder, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial, with the following memorandum: There was ample evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that defendant M. J. O’Hara Contracting Company was negligent. The court, however, erred in excluding Exhibit C for identification. It was admissible under section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act. Similar records of a deceased physician were held to be properly admitted in Duffy v. Edison, Inc. (240 App. Div. 1002; Gelderman v. Munson Steamship Line No. 1, 232 id. 776.)

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

Goodkin v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp., 241 A.D. 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

241 A.D. 737 (Goodkin v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. Bodian
130 A.D.2d 221 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Jezowski v. Beach
59 Misc. 2d 224 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
People v. Kohlmeyer
31 N.E.2d 490 (New York Court of Appeals, 1940)
In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of O'Grady
254 A.D. 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)