From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nagel v. Paige

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 5, 1942
264 App. Div. 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Opinion

June 5, 1942.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County, COHALAN, J.

Jay J. Lehrman of counsel [ Albert Stuzin, attorney], for the appellant.

John H. Lewis of counsel [ Lucius L. Delany with him on the brief; Delany Lewis, attorneys], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., TOWNLEY, GLENNON, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ.


The exclusion by the court of defendant's written report of the accident made to the Motor Vehicle Bureau shortly after its occurrence constituted prejudicial error. The incorrect ruling deprived plaintiff of the opportunity of showing material inconsistencies between defendant's proof and his own accident report. "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made." ( Reed v. McCord, 160 N.Y. 330, 341. See, also, Gangi v. Fradus, 227 id. 452, 456; Scheiner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 236 App. Div. 24, 26.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.


Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.


Summaries of

Nagel v. Paige

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 5, 1942
264 App. Div. 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)
Case details for

Nagel v. Paige

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET NAGEL, Appellant, v. MYLES A. PAIGE, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1942

Citations

264 App. Div. 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)
35 N.Y.S.2d 321

Citing Cases

Nappi v. Falcon Truck Renting Corp.

The proof need not be direct and positive contradiction; it is enough that the testimony and the statements…

McCoy v. Gorenstein

Since it said nothing about stopping before entering the intersection the report was admissible both as…