Lindquist v. State

New York State Court of Claims

Lindquist v. State

30 Misc. 2d 978, 221 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2608

CourtNew York Court of Claims

DecidedJuly 12, 1961

DocketClaim No. 35366

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Misc. 2d 978 (Lindquist 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

Lindquist v. State, 30 Misc. 2d 978, 221 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2608 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Bernard Ryan, P. J.

Upon the trial of this claim an employee of the State Department of Public Works produced certain contract drawings and, with their aid, testified about the reconstruction of the highway location where claimant’s accident occurred. A review of the transcript of the trial does not disclose any testimony to the effect that the contract drawings called for the placement of a reducer strip at the junction of two highways of different widths. The drawings were not offered in evidence and although they may reveal such a provision the court cannot make a finding that they did. That request by claimant is refused. Likewise declined is counsel’s suggestion that the court may take judicial notice of the provision of the drawings.

The court does find that it was negligent to fail to repair the highway and to fail by a reducer strip or otherwise to meld the pavement from its wider to its narrower width.

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

Bernard Ryan, P. J.

Upon the trial of this claim an employee of the State Department of Public Works produced certain contract drawings and, with their aid, testified about the reconstruction of the highway location where claimant’s accident occurred. A review of the transcript of the trial does not disclose any testimony to the effect that the contract drawings called for the placement of a reducer strip at the junction of two highways of different widths. The drawings were not offered in evidence and although they may reveal such a provision the court cannot make a finding that they did. That request by claimant is refused. Likewise declined is counsel’s suggestion that the court may take judicial notice of the provision of the drawings.

The court does find that it was negligent to fail to repair the highway and to fail by a reducer strip or otherwise to meld the pavement from its wider to its narrower width.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Misc. 2d 978, 221 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindquist-v-state-nyclaimsct-1961.