Kurdilla v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kurdilla v. Schwartz

33 A.D.2d 573, 305 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 573 (Kurdilla v. Schwartz) 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

Kurdilla v. Schwartz, 33 A.D.2d 573, 305 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment óf the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 16,1967 in favor of defendant Frances Schwartz dpon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. It was error to admit into evidence á statement over the telephone to an insurance broker, allegedly made by a defendant who did not witness the accident, because" the statement was a self-serving declaration which was hearsay- and ’therefore was prejudicial to plaintiff (Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N. Y. 124; Williams v. Alexander, 309 N. Y. 283; Cox v. State of New York, 3 N Y 2d 693). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment óf the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 16,1967 in favor of defendant Frances Schwartz dpon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. It was error to admit into evidence á statement over the telephone to an insurance broker, allegedly made by a defendant who did not witness the accident, because" the statement was a self-serving declaration which was hearsay- and ’therefore was prejudicial to plaintiff (Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N. Y. 124; Williams v. Alexander, 309 N. Y. 283; Cox v. State of New York, 3 N Y 2d 693). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 573, 305 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurdilla-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack