De Vito v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Vito v. Bell

54 A.D.2d 683, 387 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14227

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 683 (De Vito v. Bell) 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

De Vito v. Bell, 54 A.D.2d 683, 387 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of a collision at an uncontrolled intersection, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 29, 1975, which is in favor of defendants and against them, upon a jury verdict, after a trial limited to the issue of liability only. Judgment affirmed, with costs. While the charge might not be considered perfect, it was adequate, when considered as a whole, to instruct the jury with respect to negligence as a proximate cause of the accident, and contributory negligence as a bar to recovery (see Kalish v Krieger, 42 AD2d 955). We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of a collision at an uncontrolled intersection, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 29, 1975, which is in favor of defendants and against them, upon a jury verdict, after a trial limited to the issue of liability only. Judgment affirmed, with costs. While the charge might not be considered perfect, it was adequate, when considered as a whole, to instruct the jury with respect to negligence as a proximate cause of the accident, and contributory negligence as a bar to recovery (see Kalish v Krieger, 42 AD2d 955). We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 683, 387 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-vito-v-bell-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack