Hayes v. Raymond Kramer, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Raymond Kramer, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 439, 260 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3735

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

DecidedJune 29, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 439 (Hayes v. Raymond Kramer, Inc.) 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

Hayes v. Raymond Kramer, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 439, 260 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Reargument was allowed pursuant to the order of this court dated April 23, 1965 (23 A D 2d 746) since plaintiff died after verdict but before judgment [440]*440was entered and before the notices of appeal were served. Prior to the argument of the appeal plaintiff’s attorney failed to notify this court of the death of his client. (See, also, 23 A D 2d 494.) The rejection of the records of Union Hospital by the trial court was not prejudicial error since plaintiff entered said hospital three years and eight months after the accident which gave rise to the cause of action herein. Further, the diagnoses were too speculative. Accordingly, we adhere to our original decision. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Reargument was allowed pursuant to the order of this court dated April 23, 1965 (23 A D 2d 746) since plaintiff died after verdict but before judgment [440]*440was entered and before the notices of appeal were served. Prior to the argument of the appeal plaintiff’s attorney failed to notify this court of the death of his client. (See, also, 23 A D 2d 494.) The rejection of the records of Union Hospital by the trial court was not prejudicial error since plaintiff entered said hospital three years and eight months after the accident which gave rise to the cause of action herein. Further, the diagnoses were too speculative. Accordingly, we adhere to our original decision. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 439, 260 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-raymond-kramer-inc-nyappdiv-1965.