Vinciguerra v. Otis Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vinciguerra v. Otis Elevator Co.

254 A.D.2d 350, 678 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 350 (Vinciguerra v. Otis Elevator Co.) 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

Vinciguerra v. Otis Elevator Co., 254 A.D.2d 350, 678 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered May 28, 1997, as, upon the granting of the defendant’s oral motions to preclude certain testimony and to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs notice of appeal from a decision of the same court, dated April 7, 1997, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motions to preclude and to dismiss the complaint are denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for trial.

The court erred in precluding the plaintiff from testifying about two telephone conversations she allegedly had with one of the defendant’s employees. While the plaintiff could not rec[351]*351ognize the speaker’s voice, the identity of a party to a telephone conversation may be proven by circumstantial evidence (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 291-292; People v Shapiro, 227 AD2d 506). Here, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the speaker was, in fact, the defendant’s employee (see, People v Lynes, supra, at 292-293). Consequently, the identity of the speaker was an issue for the jury’s determination. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter 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 so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered May 28, 1997, as, upon the granting of the defendant’s oral motions to preclude certain testimony and to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs notice of appeal from a decision of the same court, dated April 7, 1997, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motions to preclude and to dismiss the complaint are denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for trial.

The court erred in precluding the plaintiff from testifying about two telephone conversations she allegedly had with one of the defendant’s employees. While the plaintiff could not rec[351]*351ognize the speaker’s voice, the identity of a party to a telephone conversation may be proven by circumstantial evidence (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 291-292; People v Shapiro, 227 AD2d 506). Here, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the speaker was, in fact, the defendant’s employee (see, People v Lynes, supra, at 292-293). Consequently, the identity of the speaker was an issue for the jury’s determination. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 350, 678 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinciguerra-v-otis-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack