From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Silfverchiold v. Hut Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 16, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Best, J.).


While it was error to admit into evidence that portion of the police report containing respondent absent taxi driver's exculpatory statement regarding appellant's bus's involvement in the accident (see, Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261, 274; Sansevere v. United Parcel Serv., 181 A.D.2d 521, 524), the error does not warrant reversal, because the report was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, and the result would have been the same had the report been excluded (see, Fischl v. Carbone, 155 A.D.2d 516, citing Moore v. Maggio, 96 A.D.2d 738). We have considered appellants other arguments, including that the finding of fault as against it is against the weight of the evidence, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Silfverchiold v. Hut Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Silfverchiold v. Hut Cab Corp.

Case Details

Full title:IRMA SILFVERCHIOLD et al., Respondents, v. HUT CAB CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

Lavyne v. MTA/New York City Transit Auth.

The purpose of this rule is to permit a writing or record, made in the regular course of business, to be…

Brown v. Reece

The purpose of this rule is to permit a writing or record, made in the regular course of business, to be…