Plutzer v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Plutzer v. City of New York

21 Misc. 2d 681, 197 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3832

DecidedJanuary 8, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Misc. 2d 681 (Plutzer v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plutzer v. City of New York, 21 Misc. 2d 681, 197 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3832 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

James J. Conroy, J.

This is a motion for a further examination of the defendant the Board of Education of the City of New York by the principal of the school wherein it is contended the infant plaintiff was injured. Apparently, the only reason to examine such principal is to compel him to produce all rules, regulations and directions of the said school or the defendant board regarding the use of the school facilities by pupils. A private rule such as this is not admissible in evidence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, has ruled that a safety rule promulgated by a railroad company was properly refused admission into evidence. (Abady v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 6 A D 2d 803; see, also, Longacre v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 236 N. Y. 119, 125; Renoud v. City of New York, 251 App. Div. 868.)

It was also requested that the said defendant produce a statement signed by the infant plaintiff Adele Sherry Plutzer and the defendant has no objection to producing such statement. The motion is therefore granted only to the extent of directing the Board of Education to furnish the plaintiffs with the statement signed by the infant plaintiff. In all other respects the motion is denied. Settle order.

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

James J. Conroy, J.

This is a motion for a further examination of the defendant the Board of Education of the City of New York by the principal of the school wherein it is contended the infant plaintiff was injured. Apparently, the only reason to examine such principal is to compel him to produce all rules, regulations and directions of the said school or the defendant board regarding the use of the school facilities by pupils. A private rule such as this is not admissible in evidence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, has ruled that a safety rule promulgated by a railroad company was properly refused admission into evidence. (Abady v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 6 A D 2d 803; see, also, Longacre v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 236 N. Y. 119, 125; Renoud v. City of New York, 251 App. Div. 868.)

It was also requested that the said defendant produce a statement signed by the infant plaintiff Adele Sherry Plutzer and the defendant has no objection to producing such statement. The motion is therefore granted only to the extent of directing the Board of Education to furnish the plaintiffs with the statement signed by the infant plaintiff. In all other respects the motion is denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Misc. 2d 681, 197 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plutzer-v-city-of-new-york-nysupct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack