Sabowska v. Coney Island & Brooklyn Railroad

174 A.D. 913, 160 N.Y.S. 386
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 174 A.D. 913 (Sabowska v. Coney Island & Brooklyn Railroad) 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
Sabowska v. Coney Island & Brooklyn Railroad, 174 A.D. 913, 160 N.Y.S. 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The verdict for defendant established that the jury disbelieved plaintiff’s story of having been thrown from a street car when attempting to alight, by which she suffered injuries that led to an alleged miscarriage. Plaintiff’s inconsistent statements, attempted to be supported by witnesses who claimed to have been secured through advertising, but whom plaintiff had already obtained in advance of her advertisement, showed a concerted scheme of imposition which, appearing before the trial, caused two counsel in succession to withdraw from the case. We ñnd no error in admitting evidence from Townsend and Mrs. Paulson to contradict plaintiff’s denials of having visited the witness Townsend and representing herself there as his wife. Her relations with Townsend were not collateral, as he was the person whom she originally claimed had assisted her right after the accident, and hence evidence of her prior intimacy with him, in connection with her attempt to use him as a witness, became strictly admissible. (Wigm. Ev. § 1006.) Neither was there error in the charge as finally qualified. The jury were properly told that unless plaintiff consented the physicians, whom her attorneys had called to examine her, could not be required to disclose what they had thus found. The circumstance that they were not called upon could, with this qualification, be considered by the jury. The verdict was right. The judgment and order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Matter of Rake v. Spall
2005 NY Slip Op 25530 (Monroe Family Court, 2005)
Rake v. Spall
11 Misc. 3d 364 (New York Family Court, 2005)
Commissioner of Social Services v. Philip De G.
450 N.E.2d 681 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Thornton v. Vonallmon
456 S.W.2d 795 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1970)
Rudnik v. Norwich Pharmacal Co.
34 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Hemler v. Hucony Gas Co.
18 S.W.2d 942 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.D. 913, 160 N.Y.S. 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabowska-v-coney-island-brooklyn-railroad-nyappdiv-1916.