Cross v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cross v. Cohen

256 A.D. 891, 9 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5264

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 891 (Cross v. Cohen) 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

Cross v. Cohen, 256 A.D. 891, 9 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence warrants the finding by the jury that the appellant was negligent in failing to have his ear under control at the fork in view of the fact that the approaching car was clearly visible by its headlights for several hundred feet and at all times thereafter up to the moment of the collision. If, as appellant said, after the accident, he did not see the approaching car, this was a further factor for the jury to consider in determining the question of appellant’s negligence in the resulting accident. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence warrants the finding by the jury that the appellant was negligent in failing to have his ear under control at the fork in view of the fact that the approaching car was clearly visible by its headlights for several hundred feet and at all times thereafter up to the moment of the collision. If, as appellant said, after the accident, he did not see the approaching car, this was a further factor for the jury to consider in determining the question of appellant’s negligence in the resulting accident. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 891, 9 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1939.