TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sabowska v. Coney Island & Brooklyn Railroad

Katherine Sabowska v. Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad Company

Sabowska v. Coney Island & Brooklyn R.R., 174 A.D. 913 (1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 15, 1916
Citations
174 A.D. 913160 N.Y.S. 386
Summary
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 14th day of January, 1916, in favor of the defendant, and also from an order entered on the 21st day of January, 1916, denying a motion for a new trial.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 11970: 21983: 12005: 219292026peak 1970 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commissioner of Social Services v. Philip De G.450 N.E.2d 681 (N.Y. 1983)
  2. Thornton v. Vonallmon456 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970)
  3. Hemler v. Hucony Gas Co.18 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. App. 1929)
  4. Rudnik v. Norwich Pharmacal Co.34 A.D.2d 912 (1970)
  5. Rake v. Spall11 Misc. 3d 364 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2005)
  6. Rake v. Spall2005 NY Slip Op 25530 (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Monroe Cty. 2005)

Most recent

  1. Rake v. Spall11 Misc. 3d 364 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2005)
  2. Rake v. Spall2005 NY Slip Op 25530 (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Monroe Cty. 2005)
  3. Commissioner of Social Services v. Philip De G.450 N.E.2d 681 (N.Y. 1983)
  4. Thornton v. Vonallmon456 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970)
  5. Rudnik v. Norwich Pharmacal Co.34 A.D.2d 912 (1970)
  6. Hemler v. Hucony Gas Co.18 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. App. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list