Burnash v. Dunn

New York Court of Appeals

Burnash v. Dunn

196 N.E.2d 563, 13 N.Y.2d 1139

DecidedJanuary 16, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 196 N.E.2d 563 (Burnash v. Dunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burnash v. Dunn, 196 N.E.2d 563, 13 N.Y.2d 1139 (N.Y. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. (Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp., 10 N Y 2d 20).

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld and Burke. Taking no part: Judge Bergan. Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that this accident did not occur upon a “ ramp ”, as that term is defined by rule 23-35.1 of the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals. Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp. (10 N Y 2d 20) involved an inclined plane to permit trucks to descend into an excavation. In our view, even that case does not require classification as a ramp of any sloping land off from a public highway which has been traversed by other vehicles or even if in ordinary parlance it may be termed a driveway. This record does not establish that the “ driveway” used was the type of ramp contemplated in the Conte case or by the provisions of the State Board of Standards and Appeals regulations.

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

Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. (Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp., 10 N Y 2d 20).

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld and Burke. Taking no part: Judge Bergan. Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that this accident did not occur upon a “ ramp ”, as that term is defined by rule 23-35.1 of the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals. Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp. (10 N Y 2d 20) involved an inclined plane to permit trucks to descend into an excavation. In our view, even that case does not require classification as a ramp of any sloping land off from a public highway which has been traversed by other vehicles or even if in ordinary parlance it may be termed a driveway. This record does not establish that the “ driveway” used was the type of ramp contemplated in the Conte case or by the provisions of the State Board of Standards and Appeals regulations.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 563, 13 N.Y.2d 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnash-v-dunn-ny-1964.