Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 14 July 1964 |
| Citation | 21 A.D.2d 556,251 N.Y.S.2d 240 |
| Parties | CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., Respondent, v. Anne STEVENS and Lyle O. Stevens, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Latham & Mogavero, Unadilla (Livingston S. Latham, Unadilla, of counsel), for appellants.
Night, Keller & Relihan, Binghamton (Walter J. Relihan, Jr., Binghamton, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GIBSON, P. J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, AULISI and HAMM, JJ.
The jury, by its verdict, rejected defendant operator's testimony that while her car, preparatory to turning, was stopped in its proper lane, plaintiff's tractor-trailer, approaching from the opposite direction, after sudden application of its brakes left the pavement on its own side and overturned. In accepting the version tendered by plaintiff's operator, the jury very likely gave controlling weight to a report of accident made by a Deputy Sheriff, who did not testify, which was identified by the testimony of the Undersheriff who said that it was an accident report, 'a usual form made out after each automobile accident by the investigation officer', whose duty it was to prepare it; that the signature upon it was that of the Deputy Sheriff whom the witness had dispatched to the scene of the accident; that the report was regularly kept in the course of the regular business of the Sheriff's department and was produced from the files of that department. The portion of the report received, over the objection that it constituted hearsay, quoted defendant operator, the driver of Car 2, as follows:
Clearly, the document was properly received as a business record, the proof satisfying each of the specific conditions imposed upon its admissibility by section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act (now CPLR Rule 4518 [a]), rendering competent 'a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence or event * * * if * * * made in the regular course of any business' provided 'it was the regular course of such business to make it, at the time * * * or within a reasonable time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v. Donlan
...v. Wasserman (supra) was followed in Zaulich v. Tompkins Sq. Holding Co. (10 A.D.2d 492, 200 N.Y.S.2d 550), Chemical Leaman Tank Lines v. Stevens (21 A.D.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240), and Penn v. Kirsh (40 A.D.2d 814, 338 N.Y.S.2d Recognizing the importance of reconciling these decisions with ......
-
Coleman v Pennachio, 2008 NY Slip Op 33472(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/17/2008)
...(see Ferrara v. Poranski, 88 A.D.2d 904, 450 N.Y.S.2d 596; Murray v. Donlan, 77 A.D.2d 337, 433 N.Y.S.2d 184; Chemical Leaman Tank Lines v. Stevens, 21 A.D.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240; see also Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117, 122-123, 421 N.Y.S.2d 863, 397 N.E.2d 374)." (Guevara v. Zaharakis......
-
Yates v. Bair Transport, Inc.
...n. 12 (1954); McCormick, Hearsay, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 620, 629, 630 (1956). Thus, for example, in Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Stevens, 21 App. Div.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240 (3d Dep't 1964), an under-sheriff, acting in the regular course of his duties, made a report of an accident, quot......
-
Barzaghi v. Maislin Transport
...v. Nielson, 288 N.Y. 581, 42 N.E.2d 27; Kelly v. Wasserman, 5 N.Y.2d 425, 185 N.Y.S.2d 538, 158 N.E.2d 241; Chemical Leaman Tank Lines v. Stevens, 21 A.D.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240; Zaulich v. Thompkins Square Holding Co., 10 A.D.2d 492, 200 N.Y.S.2d 550; Toll v. State of New York, 32 A.D.2d ......
-
Hearsay
...while an admission is admissible in civil cases regardless of the declarant’s availability. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Stevens , 21 A.D.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240 (3d Dept. 1964). Finally, unlike admissions, declarations against interest may be introduced despite the lack of primary or ......
-
Hearsay
...while an admission is admissible in civil cases regardless of the declarant’s availability. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Stevens , 21 A.D.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240 (3d Dept. 1964). Finally, unlike admissions, declarations against interest may be introduced despite the lack of primary ......
-
Hearsay
...while an admission is admissible in civil cases regardless of the declarant’s availability. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Stevens , 21 A.D.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240 (3d Dept. 1964). Finally, unlike admissions, declarations against interest may be introduced despite the lack of primary ......
-
Hearsay
...while an admission is admissible in civil cases regardless of the declarant’s availability. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Stevens , 21 A.D.2d 556, 251 N.Y.S.2d 240 (3d Dept. 1964). Finally, unlike admissions, declarations against interest may be introduced despite the lack of primary ......