Legal Opinion
Zarillo v. State
New York Court of Claims
Decided July 18, 1956No. Claim No. 33339Published
1Opinion of the CourtRichard S. Heller, J.
Claimants ask leave to reargue this motion for an examination before trial objecting to the decision of this court denying the examination as to subsequent accidents. *927limiting the time to be covered in the examination as to rules and regulations and denying examination as to movements of the plaintiff (2 Misc 2d 148).
Evidence as to subsequent accidents of the same or similar nature is not admissible on the facts pleaded. (Dye v, Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 671; Masciarelli v. Delaware & Hudson R. R. Co., 178 Misc. 458.) The facts pleaded show a duty on the part of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Collentine v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Curcio v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Masciarelli v. Delaware & Hudson RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1942
- Dye v. . Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Zarillo v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1956