Smith v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• admitting statement of unidentified store employee who told plaintiff “he was sorry for [plaintiff’s] slip and fall, [and] he was supposed to clean it up”
• finding sufficient evidence that declarant was defendant’s employee where he wore a Pathmark nametag and spoke to plaintiff in a Pathmark store
• finding it more likely than not that an unidentified declarant was a Pathmark employee and that the other requirements of Rule 801(d)(2)(D
• admitting the statement of an unidentified store employee who told plaintiff “he was sorry for my slip and fall, that he was supposed to clean it up”
• “As the Second Circuit has noted, the admission into evidence of such statements is not subject to many of ‘the technical prerequisites of other evidentiary rules’ and ‘should be granted freely.’” (quoting Pappas v. Middle Earth Condo. Assoc., 963 F.2d 534, 537 (2d Cir. 1992)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).