Aspinall v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aspinall v. City of New York

221 A.D. 753

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1927·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. In taking plaintiff to his home, the driver of respondent’s automobile was not acting in the discharge of the city’s business. The act was beyond the authority of the municipal corporation. Section 282-e of the Highway Law does not impose any liability upon the city under the proof here. (Downing v. City of New York, 219 App. Div. 444.) Kelly, P. J., Kapper, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Young, J., dissents, being of opinion that the Legislature, in passing section 282-e of the Highway Law, intended that this provision should have general application to municipal corporations as well as to individuals.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. In taking plaintiff to his home, the driver of respondent’s automobile was not acting in the discharge of the city’s business. The act was beyond the authority of the municipal corporation. Section 282-e of the Highway Law does not impose any liability upon the city under the proof here. (Downing v. City of New York, 219 App. Div. 444.) Kelly, P. J., Kapper, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Young, J., dissents, being of opinion that the Legislature, in passing section 282-e of the Highway Law, intended that this provision should have general application to municipal corporations as well as to individuals.

Aspinall v. City of New York, 221 A.D. 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

221 A.D. 753 (Aspinall v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related