Vivitorian Corp. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vivitorian Corp. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

250 A.D.2d 762, 672 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5759

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 762 (Vivitorian Corp. v. Brooklyn Union Gas 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

Vivitorian Corp. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 250 A.D.2d 762, 672 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property based on negligence and breach of contract, the defendant George Bassolino Plumbing and Heating, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated December 5, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $510,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The Supreme Court erred in admitting the statement of the appellant’s employee which was contained in the Fire Marshal’s report. The hearsay statement of an employee is admissible against the employer only if the making of the statement is an activity within the scope of the employee’s authority (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 58 NY2d 1040, 1041; Lowen v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 223 AD2d 534, 535). Here, the appellant’s employee had no authority to speak on its behalf (see, Merenda v Consolidated Rail Corp., 248 AD2d 684; Lowen v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., supra). The error was prejudicial and we do not find it to be harmless (see, Sujak v Buono, 238 AD2d 405).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the appellant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino 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 injury to property based on negligence and breach of contract, the defendant George Bassolino Plumbing and Heating, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated December 5, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $510,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The Supreme Court erred in admitting the statement of the appellant’s employee which was contained in the Fire Marshal’s report. The hearsay statement of an employee is admissible against the employer only if the making of the statement is an activity within the scope of the employee’s authority (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 58 NY2d 1040, 1041; Lowen v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 223 AD2d 534, 535). Here, the appellant’s employee had no authority to speak on its behalf (see, Merenda v Consolidated Rail Corp., 248 AD2d 684; Lowen v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., supra). The error was prejudicial and we do not find it to be harmless (see, Sujak v Buono, 238 AD2d 405).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the appellant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 762, 672 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vivitorian-corp-v-brooklyn-union-gas-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack