Legal Opinion

Mauro v. Ruckert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 5, 1962Published

1Opinion of the Court

It was improper to admit evidence of the plaintiff wife’s claimed loss of sensation in her left leg and to permit recovery therefor, since no claim of such condition was set forth in her bill of particulars, and since no evidence was adduced at the trial that such loss of sensation necessarily and immediately flows from any of the injuries which were set forth in said bill (cf. Kleiner v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 193; Long v. Fulton Contr. Co., 133 App. Div. 842; Fulford v. Linch, 168 App. Div. 70; Page v. President, etc., Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 76 App. Div. 160; Brett v. Simon,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kleiner v. . Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Schulz v. FinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947
  3. Page v. President, Managers & Co. of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
  4. Fulford v. LinchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
  5. Long v. Fulton Contracting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API