Majority
Headnote
1. Evidence (§ 333[2] )—Documentary Evidence—Birth Certificate.This is a motion to confirm the report of a referee in a contested action for absolute divorce. The referee reported in favor of plaintiff. There was satisfactory proof of service. The pleadings admit there was no issue of the marriage. Plaintiff offered in evidence from the records of the board of health, under objection and exception, a certificate of the birth of the defendant’s child, which set forth that defendant and the alleged co-respondent were its parents. Plaintiff also proved by the defendant’s attending physician during her confinement, and by the testimony of the manager of the sanatorium where she was ill, the fact of her confinement, the birth of a child, and the payment of the attending physician’s fees, also sanatorium charges, by the alleged co-respondent. Proper objections were taken to all debatable testimony. The attending physician, under protest throughout, testified that he obtained the information set forth in the birth certificate as to the child’s paternity from the defendant. There was also an identification of the defendant by the doctor as his patient. Defendant, though present at the hearing and contesting the case, offered no evidence.
' [1] It was error to admit the birth certificate generally. Whether it was admissible as hearsay evidence of pedigree is not now involved. See Maher v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 110 App. Div. 724 , 727, 96 N. Y. Supp. 496 . See, also, Lee v. Sterling Silk Mfg. Co., 134 App. Div. 124 , 126, 118 N. Y. Supp. 852 , where a defective certificate of birth was held to be inadmissible as evidence of a child’s age where the vital issue was whether it was under 14; Beglin v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 173 N. Y. 374 , 376, 66 N.
[2] The physician’s testimony and that of the manager of the sanatorium that the defendant was their patient, that they attended her as such, as to how long such attendance continued, and the manager’s testimony that she went to the sanatorium without a child and took one away with her, and that the alleged co-respondent with her knowledge made some of the arrangements and paid all the bills, were not privileged. Patten v. United L. & Accid. Ass’n, 133 N. Y. 450 , 452-455, 31 N. E. 342 ; Jennings v. Supreme Council, 81 App. Div. 77 , 83-85, 81 N. Y. Supp. 90 ; Becker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 99 App. Div. 5 , 8, 9, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1007 ; People v. Koerner, 154 N. Y. 355 , 362-366, 48 N. E. 730 ; Griffiths v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 171 N. Y. 106 , 109-111, 63 N. E. 808 ; Green v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 171 N. Y. 201 , 63 N. E. 958 , 89 Am. St. Rep. 807 ; People v. Austin, 199 N. Y. 447 , 452, 93 N. E. 57 .
[3] But the weight of authority compels me to hold that the birth certificate was inadmissible, and also the testimony as to what defendant was treated for and the nature of her ailment.
[4] Although none of the plaintiff’s testimony is contradicted, it would not be the proper course to disregard the incompetent evidence and render judgment either way, without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard or to offer further or other proof, if so advised. Robinson v. New York El. R. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 219 , 221-225, 67 N. E. 431 ; Kelley Lumber Co. v. Otselic Valley R. R. Co., 136 App. Div. 146 , 148, 120 N. Y. Supp. 415 ; Gottlieb v. Dole, 109 App. Div. 583 , 585, 96 N. Y. Supp. 329 . The case will be remitted to the referee, with instructions to rehear the parties and to make such new report as may be according to law and equity.
Ordered accordingly.
Cases cited
- Beglin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance 173 N. Y. 374 at 376, 66 p. 474
- Davis v. Supreme Lodge, Knights of Honor 165 N. Y. 159 at 163, 170, 58 p. 475
- Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Knights Templar & Masonic Mutual Aid Ass'n 126 N. Y. 450 at 454-456, 27 p. 475
- Patten v. United Life & Accident Insurance 133 N. Y. 450 at 452-455, 31 p. 475
- Becker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. 99 App. Div. 5 at 8, 9, 90 p. 475
- People v. Koerner 154 N. Y. 355 at 362-366, 48 p. 475
- Griffiths v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. 171 N. Y. 106 at 109-111, 63 p. 475
- Green v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. 171 N. Y. 201 p. 475
- Robinson v. New York Elevated Railroad 175 N. Y. 219 at 221-225, 67 p. 475
- Gottlieb v. Dole 109 App. Div. 583 at 585, 96 p. 475