Legal Opinion

Dimowitz v. New York City Transit Authority

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1962PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalter R. Hart, J.

Motion insofar as it seeks resettlement of the order heretofore entered is granted and the notice of claim and bill of particulars are amended on consent so as to indicate more specifically the place of occurrence.

Insofar as the motion seeks to amend the bill of particulars so as to allege as an additional theory of liability that the defendant repaired the condition complained of in a negligent manner, the motion is granted. In the opinion of the court the original bill of particulars appears to be broad enough to encompass, within the allegation that the step was improperly maintained, a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Marcus v. Village of MamaroneckNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
  2. Feldman v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  3. Neddo v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
  4. Neddo v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1948
  5. Burtman v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1947

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Horton v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1966
  2. Bonde v. General Security Insurance Co. of CanadaNew York Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Dolce v. Cayuga Foundation Corp.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1963
  4. Douglas v. LatonaNew York Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Rosa v. Walter Co.New York Supreme Court · 1964

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API