From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bernstein v. Repatsky

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 19, 1956
2 Misc. 2d 938 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)

Opinion

June 19, 1956

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, ROGER J. BROCK, J.

Edwin S. Clare and Mary B. Tarcher for appellant.

Samuel Z. Cohen for respondent.


It was error to admit in evidence a statement of defendant's tax return for the purpose of proving payment. The statement was merely a self-serving declaration. It did not sufficiently appear that it was made in the regular course of business and that it was the regular course of business to make the same (Civ. Prac. Act, § 374-a). Moreover, the decision was against the weight of the credible evidence.

The judgment should be reversed, on the law and facts, and new trial granted, with $30 costs to the plaintiff to abide the event.

PETTE and DI GIOVANNA, JJ., concur; HART, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Bernstein v. Repatsky

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 19, 1956
2 Misc. 2d 938 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)
Case details for

Bernstein v. Repatsky

Case Details

Full title:DAVID BERNSTEIN, Appellant, v. PHILIP REPATSKY, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 19, 1956

Citations

2 Misc. 2d 938 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)
157 N.Y.S.2d 403

Citing Cases

Anderson v. Permanent Land No. 7 Corp.

The portion of plaintiff's report to the Workmen's Compensation Board in which he described the alleged…