Moretta v. Davenport Express, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moretta v. Davenport Express, Inc.

243 A.D.2d 547, 662 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9784

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 547 (Moretta v. Davenport Express, Inc.) 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

Moretta v. Davenport Express, Inc., 243 A.D.2d 547, 662 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 17, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s request for a continuance to produce the police officer who responded to the scene of the accident. The officer was not a witness to the accident, and the plaintiff did not claim that he made any investigation of the accident which would have yielded relevant testimony (Balogh v H.R.B. Caterers, 88 AD2d 136).

The fact that a witness’s statement was contained in the officer’s report also is immaterial. The witness was not under a duty to give a statement to the police officer, and the statement did not fall under any exception to the hearsay rule, so it could not have been offered for its truth. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 17, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s request for a continuance to produce the police officer who responded to the scene of the accident. The officer was not a witness to the accident, and the plaintiff did not claim that he made any investigation of the accident which would have yielded relevant testimony (Balogh v H.R.B. Caterers, 88 AD2d 136).

The fact that a witness’s statement was contained in the officer’s report also is immaterial. The witness was not under a duty to give a statement to the police officer, and the statement did not fall under any exception to the hearsay rule, so it could not have been offered for its truth. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 547, 662 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moretta-v-davenport-express-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack