Case Name: Arthur Anderson, Respondent, v. Permanent Land No. 7 Corporation et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-06-16
Citations: 18 Misc. 2d 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arthur Anderson, Respondent, v. Permanent Land No. 7 Corporation et al., Appellants.
Judges: Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Arthur Anderson, Respondent, v. Permanent Land No. 7 Corporation et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
June 16, 1959.
Casper B. Ughetta and William C. Mattison for appellants.
Eugene E. Lefkoivitz and Sillik Pollayes for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The portion of plaintiff's report to the Workmen's Compensation Board in which he described the alleged negligent condition was self-serving, and its admission in evidence erroneous and prejudicial to the defendants. (Bloom v. Union Ry. Co., 165 App. Div. 257; Trampusch v. Kastner, 242 App. Div. 803; Clark v. Thompson, 258 App. Div. 748; Bernstein v. Repatsky, 2 Misc 2d 938; Robb v. Hackley, 23 Wend. 50.)
The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the defendants (o abide the event.
Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.
Judgment reversed, etc.