You are here: / / STATEMENT IN HOSPITAL RECORD ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS...
,

STATEMENT IN HOSPITAL RECORD ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF A BUSINESS RECORD AND AS A PARTY ADMISSION, STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on liability because a statement attributed to the plaintiff in a hospital report should not have been excluded. Plaintiff alleged she was struck by defendant's vehicle as she walked behind it. The statement attributed to plaintiff indicated only that she fell in the road. The nurse who wrote the statement would have testified the plaintiff made the statement. The statement was admissible as part of a business record (hospital record) because it was germane to treatment or diagnosis. The statement was also admissible as a party admission:

“Such records are admissible if the proponent offers either foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c)” … . The defendants should have been permitted to call the nurse to testify to establish a foundation for the admission of the entry from the hospital record as a business record. A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient … . Further, “if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'” … . In this case, the nurse, had she been permitted to testify, would have provided the evidence connecting the plaintiff to the entry, and, since the entry was inconsistent with the plaintiff's position at trial, which was that she was struck by the vehicle, the entry would be admissible as a party admission. Berkovits v Chaaya, 2016 NY Slip Op 03131, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


You might also like
EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT).
TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS PASSENGER’S SUDDEN STOP INJURY CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).
ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS ACTION FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AFTER A DWI CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COUNTY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY CODE (SECOND DEPT).
Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Is Not Waived by Making a Motion to Dismiss on that Ground/Process Server’s Testimony About Attempts to Locate Defendant Lacked Credibility
Article 78 Is Proper Mechanism for Seeking Return of Property Held by the Police Department/Here Petitioner Was Not Entitled to Return of Firearm Not Licensed in New York/Firearms Owners’ Protection Act Did Not Apply
EVEN THOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WAS REJECTED AS DEFICIENT, THE MOTION CONSTITUTED INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND... CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS...