Case ID: misc2d_2/html/0938-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Bernstein, Appellant, v. Philip Repatsky, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    June 19, 1956.
    
      Edwin S. Clare and Mary B. Tarcher for appellant.
    
      Samuel Z. Cohen for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

It was error to admit in evidence a statement of defendant’s tax return for the purpose of proving payment. The statement was merely a self-serving declaration. It did not sufficiently appear that it was made in the regular course of business and that it was the regular course of business to make the Same (Civ. Prac. Act, § 374-a). Moreover, the decision was against the weight of the credible evidence.

The judgment should be reversed, on the law and facts, and new trial granted, with $30 costs to the plaintiff to abide the event.

Pette and Di Giovanna, JJ., concur; Hart, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.