Greengold v. Long Island Rail Road

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greengold v. Long Island Rail Road

10 A.D.2d 567, 196 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12023

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 567 (Greengold v. Long Island Rail Road) 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

Greengold v. Long Island Rail Road, 10 A.D.2d 567, 196 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent. In affirming this judgment, we are troubled by the conduct of plaintiff’s trial attorney. He used Flynn, a present employee of the defendant, in conflict with the interests of Flynn’s own employer, to assist in the preparation of a lawsuit by seeking out a witness, Vanderpool, a retired employee of defendant. Moreover, and equally troublesome, such employee was paid so-called expense money, disproportinate to any actual expenses sustained. An aggravating circumstance is that the written statement was not obtained from the retired employee until shortly before trial, three years and three months after the happening of the accident. Such statement, in effect, appeared to repudiate two prior written reports of the accident given by such retired employee to his employer shortly after the accident occurred. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent. In affirming this judgment, we are troubled by the conduct of plaintiff’s trial attorney. He used Flynn, a present employee of the defendant, in conflict with the interests of Flynn’s own employer, to assist in the preparation of a lawsuit by seeking out a witness, Vanderpool, a retired employee of defendant. Moreover, and equally troublesome, such employee was paid so-called expense money, disproportinate to any actual expenses sustained. An aggravating circumstance is that the written statement was not obtained from the retired employee until shortly before trial, three years and three months after the happening of the accident. Such statement, in effect, appeared to repudiate two prior written reports of the accident given by such retired employee to his employer shortly after the accident occurred. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 567, 196 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greengold-v-long-island-rail-road-nyappdiv-1960.