Baughman v. Libasci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baughman v. Libasci

30 A.D.2d 696, 292 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3641

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

DecidedJune 24, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 696 (Baughman v. Libasci) 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

Baughman v. Libasci, 30 A.D.2d 696, 292 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 1, 1967, reversed, on the law; new trial granted as to the cause for personal injuries, with costs to appellant to abide the event; and the cause for property injury is severed and an amended judgment is directed to be entered upon the. trial court’s dismissal of that cause at the close of plaintiff’s case. Findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury on the cause for personal injuries are affirmed. In this action stemming from a vehicular collision at an intersection controlled by traffic lights, it was error for the court to refuse to charge that a motorist, passing through a green light, has the right to assume that cross-traffic will heed the red light (Shea v. Judson, 283 N. Y. 393; Mealy v. Rennert, 9 N Y 2d 202; Foley v. State of New York, 265 App. Div. 682). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 1, 1967, reversed, on the law; new trial granted as to the cause for personal injuries, with costs to appellant to abide the event; and the cause for property injury is severed and an amended judgment is directed to be entered upon the. trial court’s dismissal of that cause at the close of plaintiff’s case. Findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury on the cause for personal injuries are affirmed. In this action stemming from a vehicular collision at an intersection controlled by traffic lights, it was error for the court to refuse to charge that a motorist, passing through a green light, has the right to assume that cross-traffic will heed the red light (Shea v. Judson, 283 N. Y. 393; Mealy v. Rennert, 9 N Y 2d 202; Foley v. State of New York, 265 App. Div. 682). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 696, 292 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baughman-v-libasci-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack