Nagel v. Paige

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagel v. Paige

264 A.D. 231, 35 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4117

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

DecidedJune 5, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 231 (Nagel v. Paige) 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

Nagel v. Paige, 264 A.D. 231, 35 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The exclusion by the court of defendant’s written report of the accident made to the Motor Vehicle Bureau shortly after its occurrence constituted prejudicial error. The incorrect ruling deprived plaintiff of the opportunity of showing material inconsistencies between defendant’s proof and his own accident report. “ In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made.” (Reed v. McCord, 160 N. Y. 330, 341. See, also, Gangi v. Fradus, 227 id. 452, 456; Scheiner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 236 App. Div. 24, 26.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The exclusion by the court of defendant’s written report of the accident made to the Motor Vehicle Bureau shortly after its occurrence constituted prejudicial error. The incorrect ruling deprived plaintiff of the opportunity of showing material inconsistencies between defendant’s proof and his own accident report. “ In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made.” (Reed v. McCord, 160 N. Y. 330, 341. See, also, Gangi v. Fradus, 227 id. 452, 456; Scheiner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 236 App. Div. 24, 26.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 231, 35 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagel-v-paige-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack