Brozek v. Steinway Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brozek v. Steinway Railway Co.

48 N.Y.S. 345

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 48 N.Y.S. 345 (Brozek v. Steinway Railway Co.) 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

Brozek v. Steinway Railway Co., 48 N.Y.S. 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion delivered upon the first appeal Brozek v. Railway Co., 10 App. Div. 360, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1017. The case has been tried anew in accordance with the rules of law laid down in that opinion, and we find no reason to disturb the verdict. It is argued that our previous decision was based upon the erroneous, assumption that the accident happened at a street crossing, whereas the fact is that the street into which the plaintiff’s intestate was trying to drive was not a continuation of any street on the opposite side of Jackson avenue. We think, however, that Honeywell street may be regarded as, in effect, a continuation of Blackwell street, though Honeywell street leaves Jackson avenue at a point some distance to the west of the point where Blackwell street enters it. The case is not unlike Bresky v. Railroad Co., 16 App. Div. 83, 45 N. Y. Supp. 108, where Roosevelt street in New York was held to be practically a continuation of Baxter street, although there is no street directly opposite Baxter street, but Roosevelt street is 50 or 60 feet further north. The present case differs radically from. Meyer v. Railroad Co., 9 App. Div. 79, 41 N. Y. Supp. 92. There the wagon which collided with the car was being driven diagonally towards the approaching car at the time of the accident, while here the wagon was being driven diagonally away from it.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion delivered upon the first appeal Brozek v. Railway Co., 10 App. Div. 360, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1017. The case has been tried anew in accordance with the rules of law laid down in that opinion, and we find no reason to disturb the verdict. It is argued that our previous decision was based upon the erroneous, assumption that the accident happened at a street crossing, whereas the fact is that the street into which the plaintiff’s intestate was trying to drive was not a continuation of any street on the opposite side of Jackson avenue. We think, however, that Honeywell street may be regarded as, in effect, a continuation of Blackwell street, though Honeywell street leaves Jackson avenue at a point some distance to the west of the point where Blackwell street enters it. The case is not unlike Bresky v. Railroad Co., 16 App. Div. 83, 45 N. Y. Supp. 108, where Roosevelt street in New York was held to be practically a continuation of Baxter street, although there is no street directly opposite Baxter street, but Roosevelt street is 50 or 60 feet further north. The present case differs radically from. Meyer v. Railroad Co., 9 App. Div. 79, 41 N. Y. Supp. 92. There the wagon which collided with the car was being driven diagonally towards the approaching car at the time of the accident, while here the wagon was being driven diagonally away from it.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 N.Y.S. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brozek-v-steinway-railway-co-nyappdiv-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack