33:T528,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Solof v. City of New York, 181 Misc. 956","datePublished":"1944-04-22","legislationDate":"1944-04-22","citation":"Solof v. City of New York, 181 Misc. 956 (N.Y. App. Term. 1944)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York","description":"Read the full text of Solof v. City of New York (Solof v. City of New York, 181 Misc. 956 (N.Y. App. Term. 1944)). This legal opinion, filed in 1944-04-22, from the Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/solof-v-city-of-new-5427343"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/solof-v-city-of-new-5427343","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Solof v. City of New York, Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, Solof v. City of New York, 181 Misc. 956 (N.Y. App. Term. 1944)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}35:T40e,

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

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

*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.