Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Morales

188 A.D.2d 350

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1992-12-08
Topic
international-arbitration

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1991, which permanently stayed the arbitration of respondent’s claim for uninsured motorist vehicle benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The police accident report of the officer, who witnessed the *351instant car chase and "intentional” ramming of the police vehicle in which Officer Morales was a passenger, was properly admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to CPLR 4518 (a) (see, Yeargans v Yeargans, 24 AD2d 280). Moreover, the officers/witnesses’ statements concerning the intentional nature of the incident were correctly considered by the court since the officers were trained experts in accident investigation. Finally, under the circumstances the court’s conclusion that this was not a covered "accident” was neither against the weight of the evidence nor contrary to law. Concur — Sullivan, J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Morales. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1991, which permanently stayed the arbitration of respondent’s claim for uninsured motorist vehicle benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The police accident report of the officer, who witnessed the *351 instant car chase and "intentional” ramming of the police vehicle in which Officer Morales was a passenger, was properly admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to CPLR 4518 (a) (see, Yeargans v Yeargans, 24 AD2d 280). Moreover, the officers/witnesses’ statements concerning the intentional nature of the incident were correctly considered by the court since the officers were trained experts in accident investigation. Finally, under the circumstances the court’s conclusion that this was not a covered "accident” was neither against the weight of the evidence nor contrary to law. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.