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
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE.
THE DREXEL UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM (CO-OP) ARRANGES FOR STUDENTS TO WORK FOR PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS FOR COLLEGE CREDIT; DREXEL DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISION OVER THE STUDENTS TO BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY WORKPLACE NEGLIGENCE ON THE STUDENTS’ PART (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Presented No Evidence When Defective Bar Stool Was Last Inspected and No Evidence the Defect Was Latent—Summary Judgment Properly Denied
DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BUT RATHER FOUND THE PAPERS ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR WAS CONCLUSORY AND INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE NO HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MATTER NOT RULED UPON BELOW.

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 © 2026 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...