Skaarup v. Paving Contractors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skaarup v. Paving Contractors, Inc.

12 A.D.2d 870, 210 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13044

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 870 (Skaarup v. Paving Contractors, Inc.) 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

Skaarup v. Paving Contractors, Inc., 12 A.D.2d 870, 210 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of a Special Term, Supreme Court, Albany County. Plaintiff has obtained an order for the examination of defendant to frame a complaint purported to be based on negligence. There is proof that plaintiff was injured on a certain date at a specific place, but no fact whatever showing any connection, direct or indirect, of defendant with the accident is in the record; or to show that it, rather than some other corporation or member of the general public was responsible for plaintiff’s injury. There are implications in the respondent’s brief that additional evidence exists which would show some such connection; but such proof is not in the papers on which the order was based. Something more to sustain the order must be shown than is found in this record. (Stewart v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 A D 2d 582.) Order reversed, with $10 costs and motion denied, without prejudice.

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

Appeal from an order of a Special Term, Supreme Court, Albany County. Plaintiff has obtained an order for the examination of defendant to frame a complaint purported to be based on negligence. There is proof that plaintiff was injured on a certain date at a specific place, but no fact whatever showing any connection, direct or indirect, of defendant with the accident is in the record; or to show that it, rather than some other corporation or member of the general public was responsible for plaintiff’s injury. There are implications in the respondent’s brief that additional evidence exists which would show some such connection; but such proof is not in the papers on which the order was based. Something more to sustain the order must be shown than is found in this record. (Stewart v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 A D 2d 582.) Order reversed, with $10 costs and motion denied, without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 870, 210 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skaarup-v-paving-contractors-inc-nyappdiv-1961.