Da Prano v. Town of New Hartford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Da Prano v. Town of New Hartford

24 A.D.2d 547, 261 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3799

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

DecidedJune 25, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 547 (Da Prano v. Town of New Hartford) 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

Da Prano v. Town of New Hartford, 24 A.D.2d 547, 261 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The finding implicit in the verdict of the jury that plaintiff’s intestate was free from contributory negligence and that the county was negligent is against the weight of the credible evidence. The proof upon [548]*548the trial was that the point of beginning of the curve was within the City of Utiea where the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. The passenger, Pontonero, testified that the speed of the car was about 40 miles per hour which increased to 45 or 50 miles “ as we rounded the curve.” The plaintiff did not join as a defendant, the City of Utiea, but so far as pertinent our memorandum in the companion ease (Pontonero v. Da Prano, 24 A D 2d 546, decided herewith) is here applicable as to the negligence of the defendant, County of Oneida. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Trial Term for plaintiff in a negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry and Del Veechio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The finding implicit in the verdict of the jury that plaintiff’s intestate was free from contributory negligence and that the county was negligent is against the weight of the credible evidence. The proof upon [548]*548the trial was that the point of beginning of the curve was within the City of Utiea where the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. The passenger, Pontonero, testified that the speed of the car was about 40 miles per hour which increased to 45 or 50 miles “ as we rounded the curve.” The plaintiff did not join as a defendant, the City of Utiea, but so far as pertinent our memorandum in the companion ease (Pontonero v. Da Prano, 24 A D 2d 546, decided herewith) is here applicable as to the negligence of the defendant, County of Oneida. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Trial Term for plaintiff in a negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry and Del Veechio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 547, 261 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/da-prano-v-town-of-new-hartford-nyappdiv-1965.