Mahon v. Giordano
| Decision Date | 11 July 1968 |
| Citation | 291 N.Y.S.2d 854,30 A.D.2d 792 |
| Parties | Maureen MAHON and Edward Eugene Mahon, Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v. Frank GIORDANO, Defendant-Appellant, Chrysler Leasing Corp. and Frances Brown, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. H. Siff, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.
P. A. Crouch, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
T. J. Walsh, Garden City, for defendants-respondents.
Before STEVENS, J.P., and EAGER, CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN and McNALLY, JJ.
Judgment in an action for personal injuries, unanimously modified, on the facts and law, to the extent of deleting the second decretal paragraph of said judgment and directing a new trial as to the defendants Chrysler Leasing Corp. and Frances Brown, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event.
Three automobiles were involved in this accident, one of them operated by plaintiff Edward Mahon with his wife as a passenger. In a trial wherein liability was the only issue, the jury found defendant Giordano liable and exonerated defendant Frances Brown, who had been operating a car owned by defendant Chrysler Leasing Corp.
In the case of plaintiff Maureen Mahon against Frances Brown, the disputed issue was the driving of Mrs. Brown and Mr. Mahon. The police reports incorporated Mrs. Brown's version of the accident. In our judgment their admission was prejudicial error. The trial court ruled the fact that the reports were made in connection with police business was conclusive on their admissibility. The records reflected statements of the defendant Brown and the authorities are clear that police reports are not admissible to establish the main fact where the information contained in the police records are hearsay. (Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124, 170 N.E. 517; Yeargans v. Yeargans, 24 A.D.2d 280, 265 N.Y.S.2d 562; Gutin v. Frank Mascali & Sons, 11 N.Y.2d 97, 226 N.Y.S.2d 434, 181 N.E.2d 449; Needle v. New York Railways Corp., 227 App.Div. 276, 237 N.Y.S. 547.) Admissions or prior inconsistent statements or declarations against interest are not involved. See 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. Tompkins Square Holding Co., 10 A.D.2d 492, 200 N.Y.S.2d 550. Mrs. Brown's version of the accident was exculpatory: it was not an admission against interest. The officers' credibility was not in issue: th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cover v. Cohen
...the statement was exculpatory rather than inculpatory and, therefore, cannot qualify as a declaration against interest (Mahon v. Giordano, 30 A.D.2d 792, 291 N.Y.S.2d 854; see Secor v. Kohl, 67 A.D.2d 358, 363, 415 N.Y.S.2d 434) and it, therefore, cannot be said that there was no motive to ......
-
Murray v. Donlan
...State of New York, 32 A.D.2d 47, 49-50, 299 N.Y.S.2d 589; see, also, Wright v. McCoy, 41 A.D.2d 873, 343 N.Y.S.2d 143; Mahon v. Giordano, 30 A.D.2d 792, 291 N.Y.S.2d 854; Sinkevich v. Cenkus, 24 A.D.2d 903, 264 N.Y.S.2d 979; Yeargans v. Yeargans, 24 A.D.2d 280, 265 N.Y.S.2d In a recent opin......
-
Stevens v. Kirby
... ... of this case, i.e., whether defendant acted negligently in failing to control her patrons and to take precautions for the patrons' safety (see Mahon v. Giordano, 30 A.D.2d 792, 793, 291 N.Y.S.2d 854; see, also, Werber v. City of New York, supra) ... Other issues raised on this ... ...
-
Toll v. State
... ... McLaughlin, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR 4518, Supp., pp. 87--89; cf. Mahon v. Giordano, 30 A.D.3d 792, 291 N.Y.S.2d 854; Yeargans v. Yeargans, 24 A.D.2d 280, 265 N.Y.S.2d 562). Here, the collision not having been witnessed ... ...