Cutler v. Brockington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cutler v. Brockington

10 A.D.2d 712, 199 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11437

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 712 (Cutler v. Brockington) 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

Cutler v. Brockington, 10 A.D.2d 712, 199 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment, entered on a jury’s verdict, in favor of respondent against appellant. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was evidence that appellant’s truck was being operated on the Manhattan Bridge at a speed which the jury could have found to have been inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances. This together with the fact of skidding, was sufficient to warrant submission of the issue of negligence to the jury. (See Lo Piccolo v. Knight of Rest Prods. Corp., 7 A D 2d 369; Neumann v. Metropolitan Tobacco Co., 20 Misc 2d 1013.) The verdict is supported by the record. Present — Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ. [19 Misc 2d 28.]

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, the appeal is from a judgment, entered on a jury’s verdict, in favor of respondent against appellant. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was evidence that appellant’s truck was being operated on the Manhattan Bridge at a speed which the jury could have found to have been inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances. This together with the fact of skidding, was sufficient to warrant submission of the issue of negligence to the jury. (See Lo Piccolo v. Knight of Rest Prods. Corp., 7 A D 2d 369; Neumann v. Metropolitan Tobacco Co., 20 Misc 2d 1013.) The verdict is supported by the record. Present — Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ. [19 Misc 2d 28.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 712, 199 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutler-v-brockington-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack