Komsa v. Colonial Penn Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Komsa v. Colonial Penn Insurance

188 A.D.2d 367, 591 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 367 (Komsa v. Colonial Penn Insurance) 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

Komsa v. Colonial Penn Insurance, 188 A.D.2d 367, 591 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander A. Delle Cese, J.H.O.; on referral of Alan J. Saks, J.), entered on or about August 12, 1991, which, inter alia, determined that defendant Santiago Gonzalez, sued herein as Sanita Gonzalez was the owner of the motor vehicle, involved in a hit-and-run accident involving a pedestrian, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Within half an hour of an alleged hit-and-run accident in which the plaintiff was struck by a 1971 Chevolet Monte Carlo, a police accident report was filed describing, inter alia, the approximate color and the license plate number of the Gonzalez vehicle. Although the eyewitness to the incident was not identified and the reporting police officer did not appear at the subsequent hearing, counsel consented to the entry into evidence of the report. In the absence of timely objection, the evidence is presumed to have been unobjectionable and any error considered waived. (See, CPLR 4017; Horton v Smith, 51 NY2d 798, 799; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 4017.05.) Further, the totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the Hearing Officer’s findings. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander A. Delle Cese, J.H.O.; on referral of Alan J. Saks, J.), entered on or about August 12, 1991, which, inter alia, determined that defendant Santiago Gonzalez, sued herein as Sanita Gonzalez was the owner of the motor vehicle, involved in a hit-and-run accident involving a pedestrian, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Within half an hour of an alleged hit-and-run accident in which the plaintiff was struck by a 1971 Chevolet Monte Carlo, a police accident report was filed describing, inter alia, the approximate color and the license plate number of the Gonzalez vehicle. Although the eyewitness to the incident was not identified and the reporting police officer did not appear at the subsequent hearing, counsel consented to the entry into evidence of the report. In the absence of timely objection, the evidence is presumed to have been unobjectionable and any error considered waived. (See, CPLR 4017; Horton v Smith, 51 NY2d 798, 799; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 4017.05.) Further, the totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the Hearing Officer’s findings. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 367, 591 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/komsa-v-colonial-penn-insurance-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack