History
  • No items yet
midpage
Nagel v. Paige
264 A.D. 231
N.Y. App. Div.
1942
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The exclusion by the court of defendant’s written report of the accident made to the Motor Vehicle Bureau shortly after its occurrence constituted prejudicial error. The incorrect ruling deprived plaintiff of the opportunity of showing material inconsistencies between defendant’s proof and his own accident report. “ In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made.” (Reed v. McCord, 160 N. Y. 330, 341. See, also, Gangi v. Fradus, 227 id. 452, 456; Scheiner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 236 App. Div. 24, 26.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Case Details

Case Name: Nagel v. Paige
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jun 5, 1942
Citation: 264 A.D. 231
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.