Jurist v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jurist v. Hertz Corp.

48 Misc. 2d 278, 264 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1451

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 7, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 Misc. 2d 278 (Jurist v. Hertz Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jurist v. Hertz Corp., 48 Misc. 2d 278, 264 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with rule 15 of the Civil Court of the City of New York Rules precluded him from offering the testimony of the doctor who examined him the day before the trial and who was not the original treating doctor. Failure to furnish defendants with this doctor’s report or afford a physical examination with respect to the alleged damage to plaintiff’s left eye was reversible error. The testimony having been admitted, the failure to strike same from the record ivas reversible error. Moreover, no proper foundation was estab[279]*279listed for his opinion that the present alleged condition of plaintiff’s left eye could have been caused by the accident.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellants to abide the event.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Timer and IIeciit, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with rule 15 of the Civil Court of the City of New York Rules precluded him from offering the testimony of the doctor who examined him the day before the trial and who was not the original treating doctor. Failure to furnish defendants with this doctor’s report or afford a physical examination with respect to the alleged damage to plaintiff’s left eye was reversible error. The testimony having been admitted, the failure to strike same from the record ivas reversible error. Moreover, no proper foundation was estab[279]*279listed for his opinion that the present alleged condition of plaintiff’s left eye could have been caused by the accident.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellants to abide the event.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Timer and IIeciit, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Misc. 2d 278, 264 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jurist-v-hertz-corp-nyappterm-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack