Bondo v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bondo v. Zimmerman

32 A.D.2d 831, 302 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3533

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

DecidedJune 30, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 831 (Bondo v. Zimmerman) 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

Bondo v. Zimmerman, 32 A.D.2d 831, 302 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses, etc., the appeal is from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 6, 1968 and entered upon a jury verdict after a separate prior trial on the issue of whether respondent Zimmerman’s operation of the motor vehicle involved in the accident was with the consent of appellant, the owner. Order affirmed, with costs to respondent Zimmerman. [832]*832In our opinion, the jury was warranted in rejecting appellant’s trial testimony; and in consequence the statutory presumption (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 388, subd. 1) was not overcome. (Cf. Smyth v. Pellegrino, 28 A D 2d 537; Reyes v. Sternberg, 27 A D 2d 828.) Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Babin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses, etc., the appeal is from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 6, 1968 and entered upon a jury verdict after a separate prior trial on the issue of whether respondent Zimmerman’s operation of the motor vehicle involved in the accident was with the consent of appellant, the owner. Order affirmed, with costs to respondent Zimmerman. [832]*832In our opinion, the jury was warranted in rejecting appellant’s trial testimony; and in consequence the statutory presumption (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 388, subd. 1) was not overcome. (Cf. Smyth v. Pellegrino, 28 A D 2d 537; Reyes v. Sternberg, 27 A D 2d 828.) Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Babin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 831, 302 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bondo-v-zimmerman-nyappdiv-1969.