Arakelyan v. Fiallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arakelyan v. Fiallo

32 A.D.2d 626, 300 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4013

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

DecidedMay 13, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 626 (Arakelyan v. Fiallo) 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

Arakelyan v. Fiallo, 32 A.D.2d 626, 300 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered August 7, 1968, denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion granted, and the case remanded to the Supreme Court for appropriate proceedings for assessment of damages. The defendant Fiallo, the operator of the truck, although admittedly tired and sleepy, having started work at 4 o’clock in the morning, decided to push on home rather than stop his vehicle. Then, at 11:50 A.M., in the middle of the Queensboro Bridge, he fell asleep at the wheel and his truck left the westbound lane and struck the plaintiffs’ ear in the eastbound lane. Upon these facts, and upon the failure of the defendants to meet their burden, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Vignola v. Britts, 11 A D 2d 801; Butler v. Albert, 1 A D 2d 43; Stanley v. Burnside, 20 Misc 2d 932, affd. 10 A D 2d 652.) Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order entered August 7, 1968, denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion granted, and the case remanded to the Supreme Court for appropriate proceedings for assessment of damages. The defendant Fiallo, the operator of the truck, although admittedly tired and sleepy, having started work at 4 o’clock in the morning, decided to push on home rather than stop his vehicle. Then, at 11:50 A.M., in the middle of the Queensboro Bridge, he fell asleep at the wheel and his truck left the westbound lane and struck the plaintiffs’ ear in the eastbound lane. Upon these facts, and upon the failure of the defendants to meet their burden, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Vignola v. Britts, 11 A D 2d 801; Butler v. Albert, 1 A D 2d 43; Stanley v. Burnside, 20 Misc 2d 932, affd. 10 A D 2d 652.) Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 626, 300 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arakelyan-v-fiallo-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack