Home/New York State Court of Claims/Zarillo v. State

Zarillo v. State

2 Misc. 2d 926, 154 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1704
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Zarillo v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2 Misc. 2d 148 →
New York Court of Claims·Decided July 18, 1956·No. Claim No. 33339·Published

Opinion

Richard S. Heller, J.

Claimants ask leave to reargue this motion for an examination before trial objecting to the decision of this court denying the examination as to subsequent accidents. [927] limiting the time to be covered in the examination as to rules and regulations and denying examination as to movements of the plaintiff (2 Misc 2d 148).

Evidence as to subsequent accidents of the same or similar nature is not admissible on the facts pleaded. (Dye v, Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 671; Masciarelli v. Delaware & Hudson R. R. Co., 178 Misc. 458.) The facts pleaded show a duty on the part of the State to exercise only general supervision (Curcio v. City of New York, 275 N. Y. 20; Collentine v. City of New York, 279 N. Y. 119) and a more extended examination would go beyond the bounds of admissible evidence. The same considerations apply to the examination as to movements of the plaintiff.

The application for reargument is therefore denied.

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

Zarillo v. State, 2 Misc. 2d 926, 154 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1704 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

2 Misc. 2d 926 (Zarillo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dye v. . Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co.
29 N.E. 320 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Collentine v. City of New York
17 N.E.2d 792 (New York Court of Appeals, 1938)
Curcio v. City of New York
9 N.E.2d 760 (New York Court of Appeals, 1937)
Masciarelli v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad
178 Misc. 458 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)
Zarillo v. State
2 Misc. 2d 148 (New York State Court of Claims, 1956)