Scotto v. Dilbert Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scotto v. Dilbert Bros.

263 A.D. 1016, 33 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7901

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 1016 (Scotto v. Dilbert Bros.) 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

Scotto v. Dilbert Bros., 263 A.D. 1016, 33 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by plaintiff-wife to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when she fell upon an accumulation of ice in the vestibule leading to the defendant’s store, and by her husband for loss of services and for expenses, judgment for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Shortly after the accident plaintiff-wife, who was unable to speak the English language, was interrogated by a policeman through defendant’s clerk, who acted as interpreter, concerning the place where the accident occurred. At the trial the clerk was not called to testify as to the correctness of his interpretation but the policeman was permitted to testify that plaintiff, in answer to the clerk’s questions, stated that she fell “ on the snow on the sidewalk ” and that she did not say anything about the vestibule. This evidence was hearsay and inadmissible. It was also error for the court to charge that if the policeman’s testimony in this respect was true, the verdict must be for the defendant. (People v. Sing, 242 N. Y. 419, 422, 423, and cases cited.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by plaintiff-wife to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when she fell upon an accumulation of ice in the vestibule leading to the defendant’s store, and by her husband for loss of services and for expenses, judgment for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Shortly after the accident plaintiff-wife, who was unable to speak the English language, was interrogated by a policeman through defendant’s clerk, who acted as interpreter, concerning the place where the accident occurred. At the trial the clerk was not called to testify as to the correctness of his interpretation but the policeman was permitted to testify that plaintiff, in answer to the clerk’s questions, stated that she fell “ on the snow on the sidewalk ” and that she did not say anything about the vestibule. This evidence was hearsay and inadmissible. It was also error for the court to charge that if the policeman’s testimony in this respect was true, the verdict must be for the defendant. (People v. Sing, 242 N. Y. 419, 422, 423, and cases cited.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 1016, 33 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scotto-v-dilbert-bros-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack