Falco v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falco v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

161 A.D. 889, 145 N.Y.S. 1122

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D. 889 (Falco v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) 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

Falco v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 161 A.D. 889, 145 N.Y.S. 1122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to defendant, and ffiotion denied upon the ground that the affidavit upon which the order is based states no fact whatever justifying the inference that defendant has in its possession any information that the decedent was killed by any detached or flying fragment from defendant’s train or that defendant actually or inferentially has the same in its possession, or that any reports have been made to it with reference to such parts. Without otherwise passing on the merits of the motion, leave is given to renew upon affidavits which shall suitably inform the court as to the nature and cause of the accident. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to defendant, and ffiotion denied upon the ground that the affidavit upon which the order is based states no fact whatever justifying the inference that defendant has in its possession any information that the decedent was killed by any detached or flying fragment from defendant’s train or that defendant actually or inferentially has the same in its possession, or that any reports have been made to it with reference to such parts. Without otherwise passing on the merits of the motion, leave is given to renew upon affidavits which shall suitably inform the court as to the nature and cause of the accident. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D. 889, 145 N.Y.S. 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falco-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-nyappdiv-1914.