Klein & Brown, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein & Brown, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

64 Misc. 2d 908, 316 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1549

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 10, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 Misc. 2d 908 (Klein & Brown, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.) 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

Klein & Brown, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 64 Misc. 2d 908, 316 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Absent a showing that the Police Department of the City of New York is staffed by duly qualified criminalist experts in the fields of microscopy and loeksmithing who in the day-by-day routine, law-enforcement business of the Police Department regularly make written records of their observations, studies and opinions as to the methods and means by which reported burglaries are effected in the City of New York, it was error to receive in evidence, over specific objections, a written record of the Police Department of the City of New York purporting to set forth the opinions of a member of the Police Department, not shown to be a criminalist expert in the specialized fields of knowledge involved, based on observations and studies of an unauthenticated lock, necessitating a special[910]*910ized knowledge and training in the fields of microscopy and locksmithing. The trial court’s singular reliance on this improperly admitted record, in resolving the close question of fact at issue, i.e., the existence of visible marks of forcible entry, requires a new trial. The judgment in favor of plaintiff should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant.

Concur — Quinn, J. P., Gold and Streit, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Absent a showing that the Police Department of the City of New York is staffed by duly qualified criminalist experts in the fields of microscopy and loeksmithing who in the day-by-day routine, law-enforcement business of the Police Department regularly make written records of their observations, studies and opinions as to the methods and means by which reported burglaries are effected in the City of New York, it was error to receive in evidence, over specific objections, a written record of the Police Department of the City of New York purporting to set forth the opinions of a member of the Police Department, not shown to be a criminalist expert in the specialized fields of knowledge involved, based on observations and studies of an unauthenticated lock, necessitating a special[910]*910ized knowledge and training in the fields of microscopy and locksmithing. The trial court’s singular reliance on this improperly admitted record, in resolving the close question of fact at issue, i.e., the existence of visible marks of forcible entry, requires a new trial. The judgment in favor of plaintiff should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant.

Concur — Quinn, J. P., Gold and Streit, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Misc. 2d 908, 316 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-brown-inc-v-fidelity-deposit-co-nyappterm-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack