From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bates v. Smyth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1989
149 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 3, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.).


Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents.

The defendant Andrew Smyth's arguments in favor of a new trial are not properly before us since he failed to cross-appeal from the interlocutory judgment.

The trial court did not err in excluding a statement allegedly made by the defendant Andrew Smyth to the plaintiff Harle Bates in a conversation after the accident. The statement was hearsay and none of the exceptions to the hearsay rule permitted its admission.

We have considered the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bates v. Smyth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1989
149 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Bates v. Smyth

Case Details

Full title:HARLE BATES et al., Appellants, v. ANDREW SMYTH, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)