Cicero v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cicero v. Clark

23 A.D.2d 583, 256 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4801

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 583 (Cicero v. Clark) 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

Cicero v. Clark, 23 A.D.2d 583, 256 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action arising from a collision between two automobiles, the defendants appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 9, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages; and (2) from an order of said court, made September 10, 1964 upon reargument, which again granted the motion. Appeal from order of September 9, 1964 dismissed, without costs as academic; such order was superseded by the later order of September 10, 1964, made upon reargument. Order of September 10, 1964 reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, on this record triable issues of fact exist: (a) as to the alleged negligence of the defendant in falling asleep at the wheel of the automobile while driving {Smith V. McIntyre, 20 A D 2d 711; Donahue v. Bomahn, 10 A D 2d 637); ,and (b) as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff {Vignola v. Britts, 11 A D 2d 801). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action arising from a collision between two automobiles, the defendants appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 9, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages; and (2) from an order of said court, made September 10, 1964 upon reargument, which again granted the motion. Appeal from order of September 9, 1964 dismissed, without costs as academic; such order was superseded by the later order of September 10, 1964, made upon reargument. Order of September 10, 1964 reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, on this record triable issues of fact exist: (a) as to the alleged negligence of the defendant in falling asleep at the wheel of the automobile while driving {Smith V. McIntyre, 20 A D 2d 711; Donahue v. Bomahn, 10 A D 2d 637); ,and (b) as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff {Vignola v. Britts, 11 A D 2d 801). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 583, 256 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cicero-v-clark-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack