Sanchez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. City of New York

299 A.D.2d 475, 749 N.Y.S.2d 744

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 475 (Sanchez v. City of New York) 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

Sanchez v. City of New York, 299 A.D.2d 475, 749 N.Y.S.2d 744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), entered April 11, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in exclud[476]*476ing certain evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant, collateral, or otherwise incompetent (see Coopersmith v Gold, 89 NY2d 957, 959; Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643). Furthermore, although an “ambulance call report” and a statement by an ambulance attendant were hearsay and, therefore, improperly admitted into evidence, the errors were harmless (see Rizzuto v Getty Petroleum Corp., 289 AD2d 217; Barracato v Camp Bauman Buses, 217 AD2d 677; Willinger v City of New Rochelle, 212 AD2d 526).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, 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 wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), entered April 11, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in exclud[476]*476ing certain evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant, collateral, or otherwise incompetent (see Coopersmith v Gold, 89 NY2d 957, 959; Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643). Furthermore, although an “ambulance call report” and a statement by an ambulance attendant were hearsay and, therefore, improperly admitted into evidence, the errors were harmless (see Rizzuto v Getty Petroleum Corp., 289 AD2d 217; Barracato v Camp Bauman Buses, 217 AD2d 677; Willinger v City of New Rochelle, 212 AD2d 526).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 475, 749 N.Y.S.2d 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack