Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Lutz

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

Decided April 15, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The verdict* was not excessive. Section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act† refers to an act, transaction, occurrence or event in which someone engaged in the business actually participated. The witnesses of the accident who made statements to the policeman were not engaged in the police business in the course of which the memorandum of the transaction was made. The policeman did not witness the accident. His report is based upon what others told him. It is not within the purview of the section. Other alleged errors in the admission of…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Holliday v. Hudson Armored Car & Courier Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  2. Yeargans v. YeargansAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  3. Needle v. New York Railways Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
  4. Stern v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API