purpose of establishing claim in New York

2016The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the excessiveness of the sentence he received pursuant to the plea agree *756 ment is without merit (see People v Wynn, 40 AD3d 893, 894 [2007]; People v Deale, 29 AD3d 602, 603 [2006]; People v Catts, 26 AD3d 341 [2006]).

1928(Case v. Potter, 8 Johns. 211, 212 ; Vosburgh v. Thayer, supra; Smith v. Rentz, 131 N. Y. 169,176 .) Under no circumstances, therefore, could claimant’s books of account be received in evidence for the purpose of establishing his claim for money alleged to have been loaned by him to decedent.

1928(Case v. Potter, 8 Johns. 211, 212 ; Vosburgh v. Thayer, supra; Smith v. Rentz, 131 N. Y. 169,176 .) Under no circumstances, therefore, could claimant’s books of account be received in evidence for the purpose of establishing his claim for money alleged to have been loaned by him to decedent.

1928In Matter of McGoldrick v. Traphagen ( 88 N. Y. 334, 338 ) the court defines the meaning of the word “ clerk ” with reference to its use in the rule of evidence above mentioned, as follows: “ The points of the appellant’s counsel do not distinctly claim that either of the respondent’s book-keepers who had charge of the books alone was a clerk within the meaning of that term, and within the rule applicable to this species of evidence.

1928(Smith v. Smith, 163 N. Y. 168 ; Swan v. Warner, 197 id. 190 .) Such rule of evidencé, however, is subject to the exception that a party’s books of account are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of establishing a claim for money loaned, because such transactions are not, in the usual course of business, matters of book account.

1928(Smith v. Smith, 163 N. Y. 168 ; Swan v. Warner, 197 id. 190 .) Such rule of evidencé, however, is subject to the exception that a party’s books of account are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of establishing a claim for money loaned, because such transactions are not, in the usual course of business, matters of book account.

1928(Case v. Potter, 8 Johns. 211, 212 ; Vosburgh v. Thayer, supra; Smith v. Rentz, 131 N. Y. 169,176 .) Under no circumstances, therefore, could claimant’s books of account be received in evidence for the purpose of establishing his claim for money alleged to have been loaned by him to decedent.

1928(Case v. Potter, 8 Johns. 211, 212 ; Vosburgh v. Thayer, supra; Smith v. Rentz, 131 N. Y. 169,176 .) Under no circumstances, therefore, could claimant’s books of account be received in evidence for the purpose of establishing his claim for money alleged to have been loaned by him to decedent.

1928(Case v. Potter, 8 Johns. 211, 212 ; Vosburgh v. Thayer, supra; Smith v. Rentz, 131 N. Y. 169,176 .) Under no circumstances, therefore, could claimant’s books of account be received in evidence for the purpose of establishing his claim for money alleged to have been loaned by him to decedent.

1928(Case v. Potter, 8 Johns. 211, 212 ; Vosburgh v. Thayer, supra; Smith v. Rentz, 131 N. Y. 169,176 .) Under no circumstances, therefore, could claimant’s books of account be received in evidence for the purpose of establishing his claim for money alleged to have been loaned by him to decedent.

1923Neither can the knowledge obtained by such officer under such circumstances and while so acting be imputed to the. bank for the purpose of establishing a defense to an obligation assumed by the other party to such agreement.” Bank of Le Roy v. Purdy, 100 App. Div. 64 .

1904(Kerr v. Blodgett, 48 N. Y. 62 .) In the present case the proof has satisfied the court that the applicant was excusable for not having proved her claim before the referee, and as the entire fund has not been distributed, and she may now have relief without interfering with the rights of others, we think the court was justified in exercising the power and making the order.

1898Matter of Kerwin, 59 Hun, 589 : Matter of Haslehurst, 4 Misc.

1898Matter of Kerwin, 59 Hun, 589 : Matter of Haslehurst, 4 Misc.

1880(Williams v. Purdy, 6 Paige, 166 .) It is clear, therefore, that proceedings may be taken for the purpose of establishing the claim in behalf of the administrator, or that he may wait until his final accounting, when he may prove the same.

1850If the chancellor or vice chancellor by whom the committee was appointed, was satisfied that the debt was justly due, the committee would be ordered to pay it out of the estate; or, if the claim was doubtful, the court would either have it settled by a reference to a master, or give the claimant permission to establish his claim by a suit at law or a bill in equity, as might be proper, under the particular circumstances of the case (In the matter of Hopper, a lunatic, 5 Paige, 489 ).