Case Name: Ralph Rizzo, as Administrator of the Estate of Ralph Rizzo, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant, and Dorothy Candela et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1961-11-27
Citations: 14 A.D.2d 927
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ralph Rizzo, as Administrator of the Estate of Ralph Rizzo, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant, and Dorothy Candela et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 927–927

Head Matter:
Ralph Rizzo, as Administrator of the Estate of Ralph Rizzo, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant, and Dorothy Candela et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Opinion:
The examination shall proceed on 20 days' written notice or on any other date mutually fixed by the parties. The rules and regulations would not be admissible in evidence (Longacre v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 236 N. Y. 119, 125; Abady v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 6 A D 2d 803; Renoud v. City of New York, 251 App. Div. 851, 251 App. Div. 868), Accordingly, their production at the examination should not have been ordered (Bergstrom v. Ridgway Co., 138 App. Div. 178). The fact that plaintiff in his complaint has alleged the existence of the rules and regulations as well as the substance of some of them, does not affect the situation (Lattimer v. Sun-Herald Corp., 208 App. Div. 503; O'Brien v. Syracuse Linoleum Floors, 84 N. Y. S. 2d 12, 15). Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Beldock, Acting P. J., not voting.