Tartakoff v. Holstein

134 Misc. 39, 234 N.Y.S. 398, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 782
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedApril 24, 1929
StatusPublished

This text of 134 Misc. 39 (Tartakoff v. Holstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tartakoff v. Holstein, 134 Misc. 39, 234 N.Y.S. 398, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was error to admit the testimony of plaintiff’s mother as to the conversation with the alleged janitress. As the conversation took place four hours after the accident, it was obviously no part of the res gestee and was not binding upon defendant. It was, therefore, inadmissible. (Sherman v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 542; Anderson v. Rome, W. & O. R. R. Co., 54 id. 334.) There being no evidence to substantiate the charge of negligence against defendant, the complaint must of necessity be dismissed.

Judgment is accordingly reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Callahan and Peters, JJ.

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

Related

Sherman v. . D., L. W.R.R. Co.
13 N.E. 616 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 Misc. 39, 234 N.Y.S. 398, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tartakoff-v-holstein-nyappterm-1929.