Rubin v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Rubin v. City of New York

192 Misc. 745, 84 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3575

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 Misc. 745 (Rubin 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

Rubin v. City of New York, 192 Misc. 745, 84 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3575 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Rubenstein, J.

If the rule announced in Smith v. Woodbury Farms & Realty Corp. (265 App. Div. 885) is to be restricted to accidents happening on private property as distinguished from the public highway, the court which made the decision should promulgate such limitation — not the Special Term. (See Levine v. Rosenman, 192 Misc. 1010.)

Accordingly, the motion to preclude is granted unless plaintiff shall serve a further bill of particulars setting forth (a) the city ordinances, regulations and statutes which plaintiff claims, defendant violated; (b) the nature and extent of the prior head injury which plaintiff claims was aggravated by the present accident; (c) the length of time plaintiff will claim he was incapacitated from his employment; (d) the loss of earnings, if any, plaintiff will claim. Settle order on notice requiring bill to be served within twenty days after service of the order herein.

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

Rubenstein, J.

If the rule announced in Smith v. Woodbury Farms & Realty Corp. (265 App. Div. 885) is to be restricted to accidents happening on private property as distinguished from the public highway, the court which made the decision should promulgate such limitation — not the Special Term. (See Levine v. Rosenman, 192 Misc. 1010.)

Accordingly, the motion to preclude is granted unless plaintiff shall serve a further bill of particulars setting forth (a) the city ordinances, regulations and statutes which plaintiff claims, defendant violated; (b) the nature and extent of the prior head injury which plaintiff claims was aggravated by the present accident; (c) the length of time plaintiff will claim he was incapacitated from his employment; (d) the loss of earnings, if any, plaintiff will claim. Settle order on notice requiring bill to be served within twenty days after service of the order herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Misc. 745, 84 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-city-of-new-york-nysupct-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack