Albertson v. Gadsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albertson v. Gadsen

27 A.D.2d 554, 277 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2818

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 19, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 554 (Albertson v. Gadsen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albertson v. Gadsen, 27 A.D.2d 554, 277 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 4, 1965, reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, plaintiffs established a prima facie case which should have been submitted to the jury. Tsitsera v. Hudson Tr. Corp. (14 N Y 2d 855), upon which the learned Trial Judge relied in dismissing the complaints, is factually distinguishable. In Tsitsera the facts supported the determination that, as a matter of law, the defendants’ acts were not the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs therein. At bar the facts were not such as to permit the trial court to hold that, as a matter of law, defendant’s acts were not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries and property damage. At most, the plaintiff driver’s acts were concurrent and not intervening causes (see Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N. Y. 425; Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A D 2d 297; 2 Restatement, Torts [Second], § 439). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 4, 1965, reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, plaintiffs established a prima facie case which should have been submitted to the jury. Tsitsera v. Hudson Tr. Corp. (14 N Y 2d 855), upon which the learned Trial Judge relied in dismissing the complaints, is factually distinguishable. In Tsitsera the facts supported the determination that, as a matter of law, the defendants’ acts were not the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs therein. At bar the facts were not such as to permit the trial court to hold that, as a matter of law, defendant’s acts were not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries and property damage. At most, the plaintiff driver’s acts were concurrent and not intervening causes (see Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N. Y. 425; Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A D 2d 297; 2 Restatement, Torts [Second], § 439). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 554, 277 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albertson-v-gadsen-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack