Legal Opinion

Siefring v. Marion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 5, 1964PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The record in this personal injury action is replete with errors and trial misconduct so prejudicial to the rights of the defendants as to require a new trial.

It was improper for the trial court to inquire as to and receive, without qualification, over the objections of both defendants, the testimony as to the statement of a mechanic that the first obligation of one of the defendants, “if [she] is a nurse * * * is to little girl [the plaintiff] that’s in your ear that was hurt”. The statement, made sometime after the accident, was inadmissible hearsay. (See Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], §…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cherry Creek National Bank v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  2. Whitehead v. Mutual Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  3. Grunfelder v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Clarke v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  2. Senn v. ScudieriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  3. Schaffer v. KurpisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API