# Ragone v. State

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · January 7, 1925 · 211 A.D. 573

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5276851

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles Ragone v. The State of New York
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** January 7, 1925
- **Citations:** 211 A.D. 573; 207 N.Y.S. 544; 1925 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10654
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Crouch
- **Judges:** Clark, Crouch, Hubbs, Sears, Taylor
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5276851

## Opinion text

Crouch, J.
(concurring):
It has been said that the statute which is now section 47 of the Canal Law was intended to afford a substantial remedy to parties who might be injured by the careless and negligent conduct of those who were intrusted by the State with the execution of its work. (Sipple v. State, 99 N. Y. 284 .) Upon the evidence here a prima facie case was made showing that an employee of the State while engaged in its work in connection with the canal (Norris v. Kohler, 41 N. Y. 42, 44 ; Ferris v. Sterling, 214 id. 249, 253) negligently injured the property of the claimant. (Griffen v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 188 .)
Within the intent of the statute that is sufficient.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5276851. Public record. Not legal advice.