D'Alcamo v. Goldbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Alcamo v. Goldbach

256 A.D. 948, 10 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 948 (D'Alcamo v. Goldbach) 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

D'Alcamo v. Goldbach, 256 A.D. 948, 10 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate through the alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile, judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The trial court erroneously refused to charge, upon plaintiff’s request, that if her intestate was crossing at the crosswalk with the light and reached a point within twelve or fifteen feet of the east curb, where he was struck when the light turned to black, he had the right of way over defendant’s automobile. The court was further in error in stating that, under the facts assumed in the request, he would leave the question of the right of way to the jury, that the rights were equal at the crossing, and that such a charge “ would be entirely different from the defendant’s story.” (Code of Ordinances of the City of New York, chap. 24, art. 2, § 11; Ward v. Clark, 232 N. Y. 195; Metzger v. Cushman’s Sons, Inc., 243 id. 118; Cherubino v. Meenan, 253 id. 462.) We do not agree with the respondent that the error was harmless. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate through the alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile, judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The trial court erroneously refused to charge, upon plaintiff’s request, that if her intestate was crossing at the crosswalk with the light and reached a point within twelve or fifteen feet of the east curb, where he was struck when the light turned to black, he had the right of way over defendant’s automobile. The court was further in error in stating that, under the facts assumed in the request, he would leave the question of the right of way to the jury, that the rights were equal at the crossing, and that such a charge “ would be entirely different from the defendant’s story.” (Code of Ordinances of the City of New York, chap. 24, art. 2, § 11; Ward v. Clark, 232 N. Y. 195; Metzger v. Cushman’s Sons, Inc., 243 id. 118; Cherubino v. Meenan, 253 id. 462.) We do not agree with the respondent that the error was harmless. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 948, 10 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalcamo-v-goldbach-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack