Bonadies v. Cody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonadies v. Cody

50 A.D.2d 882, 377 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11774

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 882 (Bonadies v. Cody) 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

Bonadies v. Cody, 50 A.D.2d 882, 377 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 13, 1975, as granted the branch of plaintiffs motion which sought to strike the affirmative defense of exemption from tort liability by virtue of a Massachusetts statute. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and action remanded to Special Term for the purpose of taking testimony in accordance herewith. The record is unclear as to whether "this State’s [New York’s] connection with the controversy was sufficient to justify displacing the rule of lex loci delictus” (see Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121, 129). Under the circumstances, a hearing is necessary. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 13, 1975, as granted the branch of plaintiffs motion which sought to strike the affirmative defense of exemption from tort liability by virtue of a Massachusetts statute. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and action remanded to Special Term for the purpose of taking testimony in accordance herewith. The record is unclear as to whether "this State’s [New York’s] connection with the controversy was sufficient to justify displacing the rule of lex loci delictus” (see Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121, 129). Under the circumstances, a hearing is necessary. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 882, 377 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonadies-v-cody-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack