From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tartakoff v. Holstein

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 24, 1929
134 Misc. 39 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)

Opinion

April 24, 1929.

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx.

E.C. Sherwood, for the appellant.

James F. Mahan, for the respondent.


It was error to admit the testimony of plaintiff's mother as to the conversation with the alleged janitress. As the conversation took place four hours after the accident, it was obviously no part of the res gestae and was not binding upon defendant. It was, therefore, inadmissible. ( Sherman v. D., L. W.R.R. Co., 106 N.Y. 542; Anderson v. Rome, W. O.R.R. Co., 54 id. 334.) There being no evidence to substantiate the charge of negligence against defendant, the complaint must of necessity be dismissed.

Judgment is accordingly reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, BIJUR, CALLAHAN and PETERS, JJ.


Summaries of

Tartakoff v. Holstein

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 24, 1929
134 Misc. 39 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
Case details for

Tartakoff v. Holstein

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD TARTAKOFF, an Infant, by MAX TARTAKOFF, His Guardian, etc.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Apr 24, 1929

Citations

134 Misc. 39 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
234 N.Y.S. 398