Solof v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Solof v. City of New York

181 Misc. 956, 49 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2238

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 22, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 Misc. 956 (Solof v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solof v. City of New York, 181 Misc. 956, 49 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, with costs to the defendant to abide the event.

[958]*958It was error to receive in evidence in its entirety the demand for admission of facts and also the written statements of the physician and dentist. The exhibits were offered under section 322 of the Civil Practice Act as an admission of facts binding upon the defendant. The demand to admit calls for the admission of facts of a controversial nature concerning the examination and treatment of plaintiff by his own physician and dentist and the reasonable value of their services, as to the truth of which defendant had neither knowledge nor reasonable means of acquiring knowledge. Such a demand is not within the contemplation of the statute.

Concur: MacCbate, McCooet and Steinbrink, JJ.

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

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, with costs to the defendant to abide the event.

[958]*958It was error to receive in evidence in its entirety the demand for admission of facts and also the written statements of the physician and dentist. The exhibits were offered under section 322 of the Civil Practice Act as an admission of facts binding upon the defendant. The demand to admit calls for the admission of facts of a controversial nature concerning the examination and treatment of plaintiff by his own physician and dentist and the reasonable value of their services, as to the truth of which defendant had neither knowledge nor reasonable means of acquiring knowledge. Such a demand is not within the contemplation of the statute.

Concur: MacCbate, McCooet and Steinbrink, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Misc. 956, 49 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solof-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack