From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kurdilla v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1969
33 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

October 20, 1969


Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 16, 1967 in favor of defendant Frances Schwartz upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. It was error to admit into evidence a statement over the telephone to an insurance broker, allegedly made by a defendant who did not witness the accident, because the statement was a self-serving declaration which was hearsay and therefore was prejudicial to plaintiff ( Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124; Williams v. Alexander, 309 N.Y. 283; Cox v. State of New York, 3 N.Y.2d 693). Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kurdilla v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1969
33 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Kurdilla v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICA KURDILLA, Appellant, v. FRANCES SCHWARTZ, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1969

Citations

33 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

People v. Canty

Similarly, an officer's testimony is hearsay where his "personal knowledge" is based upon computerized…

Abrams v. Gerold

This hearsay was improperly tendered as declarations by the appellant against her interest. ( Green v. Downs,…