Angerome v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Angerome v. City of New York

237 A.D.2d 551, 655 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3048

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 551 (Angerome v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angerome v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 551, 655 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal [552]*552injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 25, 1996, as denied her motion to compel the defendants to comply with her demand for discovery of items C, D, and E of the discovery rider.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Evidence of post-accident repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control (see, Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 AD2d 307, 308; Klatz v Armor El. Co., 93 AD2d 633). Since the respondents admit that they maintained and controlled the subject traffic light, the plaintiff is not entitled to the post-accident information sought in items C, D, and E of the discovery rider. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal [552]*552injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 25, 1996, as denied her motion to compel the defendants to comply with her demand for discovery of items C, D, and E of the discovery rider.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Evidence of post-accident repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control (see, Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 AD2d 307, 308; Klatz v Armor El. Co., 93 AD2d 633). Since the respondents admit that they maintained and controlled the subject traffic light, the plaintiff is not entitled to the post-accident information sought in items C, D, and E of the discovery rider. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 551, 655 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angerome-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack