From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glasier v. Troanovitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 1, 1942
264 App. Div. 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Opinion

July 1, 1942.

Present — Crosby, P.J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and McCurn, JJ.


Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: It was error to permit plaintiff to prove that the driver of defendant's truck had pleaded guilty to the crime of violating section 167 Lab. of the Labor Law. The driver's plea of guilty amounted to an admission which was not a part of the res gestae, and he was not a party to the action. ( Max v. Brookhaven Development Corp., 262 App. Div. 907; Cook v. A. P. Tea Co., 244 id. 63; affd., 268 N.Y. 599; Golden v. Horn Hardart Co., 244 App. Div. 92; affd., 270 N.Y. 544; Dunnet v. Levy, 261 App. Div. 295. ) The cases of Schindler v. Royal Ins. Co. ( 258 N.Y. 310) and Same v. Davison ( 253 App. Div. 123) are not applicable. In each of those cases the witness who made the admission was a party to the action. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.)


Summaries of

Glasier v. Troanovitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 1, 1942
264 App. Div. 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)
Case details for

Glasier v. Troanovitch

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD A. GLASIER, Respondent, v. ANDREW TROANOVITCH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 1, 1942

Citations

264 App. Div. 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Citing Cases

Walther v. News Syndicate Co.

In such event, of course, the probative value to be accorded the certificate of conviction would be limited…

Sutro Bros. v. Indemnity Ins. of North America

It is also fundamental, however, that as against a third party a plea of guilty is mere hearsay and not…