Zbikowski v. Saroc Holding Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zbikowski v. Saroc Holding Corp.

187 Misc. 495, 67 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3214

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 187 Misc. 495 (Zbikowski v. Saroc Holding Corp.) 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

Zbikowski v. Saroc Holding Corp., 187 Misc. 495, 67 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Memorandum It was error to admit into evidence the statement (plaintiff’s Exhibit 3). The witness had not testified to anytMng contrary to the recitals in the statement and, therefore, section 343-a of the Civil Practice Act was not applicable. The statement offered by the defendant was not objected to by the plaintiff. It was properly received as affecting the credibility of the witness as to the condition of the door. TMs statement, plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, contained conclusions as to what was known by other people and what had been told to plaintiff’s witness. It should have been excluded. (Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N. Y. 444.)

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to defendant to abide the event.

MacCrate, McCooey and Steinbbink, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Memorandum It was error to admit into evidence the statement (plaintiff’s Exhibit 3). The witness had not testified to anytMng contrary to the recitals in the statement and, therefore, section 343-a of the Civil Practice Act was not applicable. The statement offered by the defendant was not objected to by the plaintiff. It was properly received as affecting the credibility of the witness as to the condition of the door. TMs statement, plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, contained conclusions as to what was known by other people and what had been told to plaintiff’s witness. It should have been excluded. (Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N. Y. 444.)

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to defendant to abide the event.

MacCrate, McCooey and Steinbbink, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 Misc. 495, 67 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zbikowski-v-saroc-holding-corp-nyappterm-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack