Banellis v. Yackel

New York Court of Appeals

Banellis v. Yackel

405 N.E.2d 185, 49 N.Y.2d 882, 427 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2237

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 405 N.E.2d 185 (Banellis v. Yackel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banellis v. Yackel, 405 N.E.2d 185, 49 N.Y.2d 882, 427 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2237 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, for [884]*884the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (69 AD2d 1013). We note that all members of this court are agreed that in order to avoid liability under subdivision (a) of section 1210 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a motorist need only ensure that the ignition key is "hidden from sight” and need not additionally conceal it so that the key is "not readily discoverable by a prospective car thief without extreme difficulty” (NY Legis Ann, 1967, pp 205, 206). As to the concerns expressed by the dissent, it suffices to note that plaintiffs arguments at trial and before this court were premised upon his acceptance of the fact that defendant had placed the ignition key on the front seat under the cross reference directory and thus out of sight. At no time has he ever advanced the theory now espoused by the dissenters— that the defendant had not hidden the key under the book. Rather than arguing that defendant had not so hidden the key, plaintiff contended and now argues that this was not enough to fulfill the statutory mandate. In light of this concession, there existed no question of fact concerning the credibility of defendant’s testimony, and thus the trial court did not err in granting judgment to defendant at the close of plaintiffs case.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, for [884]*884the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (69 AD2d 1013). We note that all members of this court are agreed that in order to avoid liability under subdivision (a) of section 1210 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a motorist need only ensure that the ignition key is "hidden from sight” and need not additionally conceal it so that the key is "not readily discoverable by a prospective car thief without extreme difficulty” (NY Legis Ann, 1967, pp 205, 206). As to the concerns expressed by the dissent, it suffices to note that plaintiffs arguments at trial and before this court were premised upon his acceptance of the fact that defendant had placed the ignition key on the front seat under the cross reference directory and thus out of sight. At no time has he ever advanced the theory now espoused by the dissenters— that the defendant had not hidden the key under the book. Rather than arguing that defendant had not so hidden the key, plaintiff contended and now argues that this was not enough to fulfill the statutory mandate. In light of this concession, there existed no question of fact concerning the credibility of defendant’s testimony, and thus the trial court did not err in granting judgment to defendant at the close of plaintiffs case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 N.E.2d 185, 49 N.Y.2d 882, 427 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banellis-v-yackel-ny-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack