Davis v. Pross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Pross

3 A.D.2d 919, 162 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5510

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

DecidedMay 13, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 919 (Davis v. Pross) 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

Davis v. Pross, 3 A.D.2d 919, 162 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries to a motor vehicle, in which a counterclaim for similar relief was interposed, the appeal, by permission of this court, is from an order of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, entered after trial by the court without a jury, awarding respondent $35 and dismissing the counterclaim. Order modified on the law by striking therefrom everything following the words “and the same is hereby” and by substituting therefor the words “modified by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph and by substituting therefor a provision that the complaint and counterclaim be dismissed, and as so modified, affirmed.” As thus modified, order unanimously affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. In our opinion, the proof does not [920]*920establish that appellant’s ear collided with respondent’s, nor is there any proof that either party was negligent (see Wank v. Ambrosino, 307 1ST. Y. 321; Levins v. Bucholtz, 2 A D 2d 351). Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, TJghetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for injuries to a motor vehicle, in which a counterclaim for similar relief was interposed, the appeal, by permission of this court, is from an order of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, entered after trial by the court without a jury, awarding respondent $35 and dismissing the counterclaim. Order modified on the law by striking therefrom everything following the words “and the same is hereby” and by substituting therefor the words “modified by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph and by substituting therefor a provision that the complaint and counterclaim be dismissed, and as so modified, affirmed.” As thus modified, order unanimously affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. In our opinion, the proof does not [920]*920establish that appellant’s ear collided with respondent’s, nor is there any proof that either party was negligent (see Wank v. Ambrosino, 307 1ST. Y. 321; Levins v. Bucholtz, 2 A D 2d 351). Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, TJghetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 919, 162 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-pross-nyappdiv-1957.