Court Opinion

ID: 9885652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:09:40.071099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.569225
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that the trial court, in excluding the testimony offered by plaintiff, properly applied this State’s current hearsay rule. Pursuant to this rule, the hearsay statement of an agent is admissible against his employer under the admissions exception to the hearsay rule only if the making of the statement is an activity within the scope of his authority (Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div. of Carl A. Morse, Inc., 35 NY2d 1, 8; Spett v President Monroe Bldg. & Mfg. Corp., 19 NY2d 203, 206). We decline plaintiff’s invitation to change this well-settled, albeit widely criticized rule of evidence but note, in this connection, that a proposal for modifica*1042tion of the hearsay rule in this State is now before the Legislature (A Code of Evidence for the State of New York, rule 803, subd [b], par [4] [submitted to the 1982 session of the Legislature]).