Mandzych v. Karl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandzych v. Karl

33 A.D.2d 786, 307 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 786 (Mandzych v. Karl) 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

Mandzych v. Karl, 33 A.D.2d 786, 307 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, -Suffolk County, entered July 11, 1968 in favor of defendant upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact are affirmed. It was prejudicial error to receive in evidence the diagrammed conclusion of Officer Roodenburg in his accident report, based on his observations after the accident and statements by defendant, as to the point of impact (Toll v. State of New York, 32 A D 2d 47, 50; Mahon v. Giordano, 30 A D 2d 792, 793). It was also error to receive defendant’s motor vehicle accident report, filed about 14 months after the accident, as a prior consistent statement (Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N. Y. 444, 450—451; cf. Catapano v. Francis, 31 A D 2d 650, 651; Trampusch v. Kastner, 242 App. Div. 803). Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, -Suffolk County, entered July 11, 1968 in favor of defendant upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact are affirmed. It was prejudicial error to receive in evidence the diagrammed conclusion of Officer Roodenburg in his accident report, based on his observations after the accident and statements by defendant, as to the point of impact (Toll v. State of New York, 32 A D 2d 47, 50; Mahon v. Giordano, 30 A D 2d 792, 793). It was also error to receive defendant’s motor vehicle accident report, filed about 14 months after the accident, as a prior consistent statement (Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N. Y. 444, 450—451; cf. Catapano v. Francis, 31 A D 2d 650, 651; Trampusch v. Kastner, 242 App. Div. 803). Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 786, 307 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandzych-v-karl-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack