After Luis Jara was injured in a hit-and-run accident, two witnesses noted the van's license plate number. One handed Jara a piece of paper which recorded the number, while the other provided police with the vehicle's description.
By the time his negligence case was filed, Jara no longer had the paper and the other witness wasn't available to testify. (And, interestingly, no police report of the incident could be found.)
When the van's driver -- J. Salinas-Ramirez -- sought to have the case dismissed, he argued that Jara's recitation of what occurred couldn't be considered (because Jara didn't know what hit him).
After the New York County Supreme Court denied his request, Salinas-Ramirez appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which affirmed the outcome.
Citing an exception to the governing rule, the AD1 was of the view that the information Jara wanted to share with the court could be considered in opposition to the van driver's dismissal request. (Whether those statements could be accepted at trial was an entirely different matter.)
Will the exception prove the rule?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Jara v. Salinas-Ramirez