Fabricant v. State

New York State Court of Claims

Fabricant v. State

208 Misc. 898, 145 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3339

CourtNew York Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 25, 1955

DocketClaim No. 32214

StatusPublished

This text of 208 Misc. 898 (Fabricant v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fabricant v. State, 208 Misc. 898, 145 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3339 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Sylvester, J.

It is alleged that the infant sustained a fractured arm as a result of the State’s negligence. The examination of the infant by the State’s physician indicated the desirability of obtaining X rays of the affected arm and the State now moves for a further examination for that purpose. Claimant is agreeable that the motion be granted, provided a copy of the findings of the State’s physician is delivered to him, and further, that if the X-ray plates indicate anything but a positive condition that claimant’s physician be afforded an opportunity to inspect the X-ray plates. The State maintains that this condition may not be imposed upon it and, ordinarily, that would be so. (Valentine v. State of New York, 197 Misc. 972.) However, it appears that there was an exchange of correspondence between the Attorney-General and claimant’s counsel which, in effect, makes for an understanding that claimant would agree to the X-ray examination provided that he receive ‘1 a copy of the findings and if said findings are not positive, that our doctor be permitted to see the x-ray plates.” In these circumstances (cf. Andrews v. Ghikas, 278 App. Div. 658), the [899]*899motion of the State will be granted upon the condition that after the X rays are taken, a copy of the findings is to be delivered to the claimant and, in the event that the findings are not positive, that the X-ray plates will be made available for inspection by claimant’s physician; otherwise the motion will be denied.

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

Sylvester, J.

It is alleged that the infant sustained a fractured arm as a result of the State’s negligence. The examination of the infant by the State’s physician indicated the desirability of obtaining X rays of the affected arm and the State now moves for a further examination for that purpose. Claimant is agreeable that the motion be granted, provided a copy of the findings of the State’s physician is delivered to him, and further, that if the X-ray plates indicate anything but a positive condition that claimant’s physician be afforded an opportunity to inspect the X-ray plates. The State maintains that this condition may not be imposed upon it and, ordinarily, that would be so. (Valentine v. State of New York, 197 Misc. 972.) However, it appears that there was an exchange of correspondence between the Attorney-General and claimant’s counsel which, in effect, makes for an understanding that claimant would agree to the X-ray examination provided that he receive ‘1 a copy of the findings and if said findings are not positive, that our doctor be permitted to see the x-ray plates.” In these circumstances (cf. Andrews v. Ghikas, 278 App. Div. 658), the [899]*899motion of the State will be granted upon the condition that after the X rays are taken, a copy of the findings is to be delivered to the claimant and, in the event that the findings are not positive, that the X-ray plates will be made available for inspection by claimant’s physician; otherwise the motion will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 Misc. 898, 145 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabricant-v-state-nyclaimsct-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack