Preview:

Mirro v Kowalski (2009 NY Slip Op 51163(U))
[*1]


Decided on June 1, 2009
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

CV-146654-07/KI

Appearances:
Michele Mirro, Esq.
Plaintiff pro se
Jerry Christos, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
375 Merrick Avenue

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/1/2009_51163.htm[4/21/2013 11:32:00 AM]
Mirro v Kowalski (2009 NY Slip Op 51163(U))
Westbury, New York 11590
Noach Dear, J.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for properly damage to her automobile caused by the negligence of defendant, KellyAnn Kowalski. The trial of the action took place on March 12, 2009 and on April 1, 2009. Counsel for defendant represented that liability was not being contested. Accordingly, the only issue tried was damages.
The evidence plaintiff introduced at trial concerning damages was a repair estimate prepared by defendant's insurance carrier. Defendant was insured by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). Plaintiff, at GEICO's request, had brought her vehicle to one of its mechanics for an assessment of her damages. The mechanic prepared an estimate indicating that the cost of repairing the damage to her vehicle would be $2,134.04. Defendant's attorney objected to the admission of the repair estimate arguing that it consisted hearsay. He maintained that since no foundational testimony was elicited as how the repair estimate was made, it could not be admitted as a "business record" pursuant to CPLR 4518[a]. The court reserved decision on the objection. [*2]
After careful consideration, the Court now overrules defendant's objection. In Miller v. Sanchez, 6 Misc 3d 479, 482 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2004], a small claims action, Justice Jack Battaglia held that a single repair estimate, prepared by a mechanic employed by defendant's insurance carrier, was admissible to establish the extent to which plaintiff's automobile was damaged. He reasoned that The unity of interest between defendant and its carrier, and the carrier's authority to act on defendant's behalf to resolve the claim, are sufficient to render the carrier's estimate admissible against defendant (id. at 483, citing Prince, Richardson on Evidence,

Download 2009_51163.pdf

New York Law