McCarthy v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCarthy v. State

285 A.D. 1215

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

DecidedMay 11, 1955

DocketClaim No. 31157

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1215 (McCarthy v. State) 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

McCarthy v. State, 285 A.D. 1215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We think the order made is substantially correct. However, it is conceded by claimant that paragraph marked (2) should be amended by adding after the word “ acquisition ” the words “ and prior to the accident ”. The order should be amended accordingly. We also think the words “ or on similar machines ” in the same paragraph should be stricken from the order. The question of fact depends upon the condition of the machine from which claimant received his injuries and not the condition of a “ similar ” machine. All concur. (Cross appeals from an order of the Court of Claims, granting claimant’s motion for an examination of defendant before trial, but denying motion for examination of certain photographs taken by defendant.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We think the order made is substantially correct. However, it is conceded by claimant that paragraph marked (2) should be amended by adding after the word “ acquisition ” the words “ and prior to the accident ”. The order should be amended accordingly. We also think the words “ or on similar machines ” in the same paragraph should be stricken from the order. The question of fact depends upon the condition of the machine from which claimant received his injuries and not the condition of a “ similar ” machine. All concur. (Cross appeals from an order of the Court of Claims, granting claimant’s motion for an examination of defendant before trial, but denying motion for examination of certain photographs taken by defendant.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-state-nyappdiv-1955.