Lesaldo v Dabas, 2016 NY Slip Op 04181 (2d Dept. 2016)
“The plaintiff’s affidavit and the police accident report, which contained the defendant’s admission to the effect that she did not see the plaintiff walking in the crosswalk as she [*2]attempted to make the left turn, were sufficient to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zhu v Natale, 131 AD3d at 608; Brown v Mackiewicz, 120 AD3d at 1173; Ramos v Bartis, 112 AD3d 804; Brown v Pinkett, 110 AD3d 1024). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, that portion of the uncertified police accident report which contained her admission was admissible (see Gezelter v Pecora, 129 AD3d 1021, 1022-1023).
In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant’s affidavit wherein she averred that the plaintiff was not crossing the street within the crosswalk and that the impact occurred at least two car lengths past the intersection contradicted her prior admission. The defendant made no effort in opposition to explain the admission in the police report or deny its accuracy”
2 Responses
How do we know what the police report said. how do we know its a real police report given that it is not certified.
in my days as a prosecutor i came across literally thousands of police reports written by just one man — one runner.
and they were all filed with the nypd via a corrupt employee.
those would have been certified.
which argues even more for some form of authentication.
nothing has changed. the second department still fails to grasp evidence unless it wants to — then it says “cf” and cites some god forgiven case.
“forsaken” not “forgiven” although may god forgive them