Boelke v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boelke v. Kelly

2 A.D.2d 935, 156 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3957

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 935 (Boelke v. Kelly) 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

Boelke v. Kelly, 2 A.D.2d 935, 156 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review an order of the [936]*936Commissioner of Motor Vehicles revoking the petitioner’s operator’s license upon a finding that petitioner was guilty of reckless driving in violation of section 58 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. There was substantial evidence before the commissioner to justify the determination. There was proof that the petitioner had operated her automobile on a narrow curving road up a blind hill, on the wrong side of the road, and had collided with a vehicle coming in the opposite direction which was on its own side of the road. Furthermore, there was proof that the petitioner had failed to sound her horn despite the fact that her view was obstructed (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 67, subd. 1). Order unanimously confirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Zeller, JJ.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review an order of the [936]*936Commissioner of Motor Vehicles revoking the petitioner’s operator’s license upon a finding that petitioner was guilty of reckless driving in violation of section 58 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. There was substantial evidence before the commissioner to justify the determination. There was proof that the petitioner had operated her automobile on a narrow curving road up a blind hill, on the wrong side of the road, and had collided with a vehicle coming in the opposite direction which was on its own side of the road. Furthermore, there was proof that the petitioner had failed to sound her horn despite the fact that her view was obstructed (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 67, subd. 1). Order unanimously confirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Zeller, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 935, 156 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boelke-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1956.