Opinion · Nylaw New York

BILOTTI v. ROSEN, 33 A.D.2d 790 [2d Dept 1969]

PASQUALE BILOTTI, Respondent, v. JACOB ROSEN, Appellant., 33 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1969)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1969-12-22
Topic
general

BILOTTI v. ROSEN, 33 A.D.2d 790 [2d Dept 1969] PASQUALE BILOTTI, Respondent, v. JACOB ROSEN, Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. December 22, 1969 In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 25, 1969 in favor of plaintiff, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed BILOTTI v. ROSEN, 33 A.D.2d 790 [2d Dept 1969]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

BILOTTI v. ROSEN,33 A.D.2d 790[2d Dept 1969]
PASQUALE BILOTTI, Respondent, v. JACOB ROSEN, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
December 22, 1969
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 25, 1969 in favor of plaintiff, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below arePage 791affirmed. This was a close case on the question of defendant's negligence and plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence. We are of the opinion that the introduction by plaintiff, over objection, of the report of defendant's examining doctor, which report was inadmissible hearsay, constituted prejudicial and reversible error. The case relied upon by plaintiff in this court (Pickeringv.Freedman,32 A.D.2d 649) is distinguishable because there the question of the negligence of the plaintiff passenger was not as crucial as that of the plaintiff driver at bar, the injuries received by the plaintiff in that case were readily observable by the jury, and that plaintiff provided testimony by her treating physician, a fact absent from the instant case. Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.