Fernandez v. Higdon Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fernandez v. Higdon Elevator Co.

220 A.D.2d 293, 632 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10209

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 293 (Fernandez v. Higdon Elevator Co.) 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

Fernandez v. Higdon Elevator Co., 220 A.D.2d 293, 632 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about December 9, 1994, which, inter alia, required defendant to produce records of post-accident repairs and inspections, unanimously reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs, and said direction vacated.

It is well settled that evidence concerning post-accident repairs is generally inadmissible absent certain exceptions and is never admissible as proof of admission of negligence (Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248, 252). The only exceptions to the general rule arise (1) when there is an issue of control or (2) when plaintiff has alleged a defect in manufacture (Scudero v Campbell, 288 NY 328). Neither exception is applicable here.

[294]*294Accordingly, it was error to require defendant to produce the records in question. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about December 9, 1994, which, inter alia, required defendant to produce records of post-accident repairs and inspections, unanimously reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs, and said direction vacated.

It is well settled that evidence concerning post-accident repairs is generally inadmissible absent certain exceptions and is never admissible as proof of admission of negligence (Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248, 252). The only exceptions to the general rule arise (1) when there is an issue of control or (2) when plaintiff has alleged a defect in manufacture (Scudero v Campbell, 288 NY 328). Neither exception is applicable here.

[294]*294Accordingly, it was error to require defendant to produce the records in question. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 293, 632 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-higdon-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack