From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Niemann v. Luca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 17, 1995
214 A.D.2d 658 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 17, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, by deleting therefrom the provision directing the Town of Smithtown to provide discovery and inspection of postaccident repairs and remedial measures.

Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless, unlike in this case, there is an issue of maintenance or control (see, Cacciolo v Port Auth., 186 A.D.2d 528; Klatz v Armor El. Co., 93 A.D.2d 633).

On the other hand, it has been consistently held that evidence of subsequent accidents at the same place and under the same conditions as the accident in question, while of no probative value regarding the question of notice, is admissible to establish the existence of a dangerous condition, instrumentality, or place (Klatz v Armor El. Co., supra). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Niemann v. Luca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 17, 1995
214 A.D.2d 658 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Niemann v. Luca

Case Details

Full title:ELSIE M. NIEMANN et al., Respondents, v. JOSEPH N. LUCA, JR., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 17, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 658 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 267

Citing Cases

Cristion v. CRC Contracting, Inc.

¶12 Other jurisdictions have specifically examined whether evidence of subsequent accidents can be admitted.…

Watson v. FHE Services, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's…