Duffy v. Healey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duffy v. Healey

258 A.D. 1072, 18 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8947

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 A.D. 1072 (Duffy v. Healey) 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

Duffy v. Healey, 258 A.D. 1072, 18 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

—Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiffs, for loss of services and expenses by their mother, and for the death of the intestate, Michael Duffy, in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident the decedent was driving his automobile, in which the infant plaintiffs were passengers, in a westerly direction on Shore Road, Brooklyn. Two cars, owned by defendant Healey, were being driven, one behind the other, in an easterly direction on the same road. Healey’s chauffeur, Ciremella, drove the first ear, and another of his chauffeurs, Manning, followed with the second ear. It is alleged that the car driven by Ciremella collided with decedent’s car, causing it to veer across the road and collide with defendant Healey’s second car, driven by Manning. Judgment has been entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiffs and against the three defendants. As to defendants Healey and Ciremella, the owner and operator, respectively, of the first ear, the judgment and the order, in so far as appealed from, denying defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, are affirmed, with costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., dissents, votes to reverse the judgment and order and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: As to defendant Ciremella, employee of defendant Healey, driving the first car, and defendant Healey, I am of opinion that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence in its implication (1) that Ciremella was guilty of negligence in operation, and (2) that plaintiff’s intestate, was free from contributory negligence in the operation of his car. As to defendant Manning, judgment and order, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, with costs, on the

[1073]*1073ground that no negligence in the operation of the car driven by Manning was shown. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell and Adel, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment and the order in so far as appealed from.

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

—Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiffs, for loss of services and expenses by their mother, and for the death of the intestate, Michael Duffy, in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident the decedent was driving his automobile, in which the infant plaintiffs were passengers, in a westerly direction on Shore Road, Brooklyn. Two cars, owned by defendant Healey, were being driven, one behind the other, in an easterly direction on the same road. Healey’s chauffeur, Ciremella, drove the first ear, and another of his chauffeurs, Manning, followed with the second ear. It is alleged that the car driven by Ciremella collided with decedent’s car, causing it to veer across the road and collide with defendant Healey’s second car, driven by Manning. Judgment has been entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiffs and against the three defendants. As to defendants Healey and Ciremella, the owner and operator, respectively, of the first ear, the judgment and the order, in so far as appealed from, denying defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, are affirmed, with costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., dissents, votes to reverse the judgment and order and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: As to defendant Ciremella, employee of defendant Healey, driving the first car, and defendant Healey, I am of opinion that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence in its implication (1) that Ciremella was guilty of negligence in operation, and (2) that plaintiff’s intestate, was free from contributory negligence in the operation of his car. As to defendant Manning, judgment and order, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, with costs, on the

[1073]*1073ground that no negligence in the operation of the car driven by Manning was shown. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell and Adel, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment and the order in so far as appealed from.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 1072, 18 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffy-v-healey-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack