Goodkin v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodkin v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

241 A.D. 737

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 241 A.D. 737 (Goodkin v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit 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

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

Pincite

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

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.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodkin-v-brooklyn-queens-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack