From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodney v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 1996
228 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 10, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs Santa Rodney and her husband Ronald Rodney commenced this action sounding in negligence based upon an incident in which Mrs. Rodney fell from a swing at the playground at Shirley Beach in Shirley, New York. Mrs. Rodney contended that the lifeguard, Dina Ruisi, who helped her at the lifeguard station following the accident, made statements to the effect that the defendant Town was aware of the broken swing. The defendant made a motion in limine to preclude the introduction into evidence of the statements as hearsay. That motion was granted and, following a nonjury trial, the complaint was dismissed.

The plaintiffs contend that the statements attributed to Ruisi should have been admitted under the excited utterance or the present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule. We disagree.

Ruisi did not witness the fall from the swing and there was no showing that the alleged statements were made under the excitement of the situation (see, Lieb v. County of Westchester, 176 A.D.2d 704, 706). Likewise, the alleged statements were not made contemporaneously with the observation and were not sufficiently corroborated by other evidence (see, People v Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734). Thus, the alleged statements were also inadmissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions similarly lack merit. Miller, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rodney v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 1996
228 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Rodney v. Town of Brookhaven

Case Details

Full title:SANTA RODNEY et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 10, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 321

Citing Cases

Sanchez v. Goodwill Indus. of Greater New York

Contrary to defendants' assertions, said statements do not come within any recognized exceptions to the…

Murphy v. Omer Construction Co.

The court did not err in excluding, as hearsay, statements made at the scene by Gopsill to the passenger in…