Edwin v. Canning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edwin v. Canning

4 A.D.2d 691, 163 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089

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

DecidedJune 17, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 691 (Edwin v. Canning) 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

Edwin v. Canning, 4 A.D.2d 691, 163 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by one Bandhold, a passenger in a motor vehicle, against the owner and operator of said vehicle to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when said vehicle collided with another motor vehicle, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Kleinfeld, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, on the ground that the proof was sufficient to present questions of fact as to negligence, which should have been submitted to the jury.

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

In an action by one Bandhold, a passenger in a motor vehicle, against the owner and operator of said vehicle to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when said vehicle collided with another motor vehicle, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Kleinfeld, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, on the ground that the proof was sufficient to present questions of fact as to negligence, which should have been submitted to the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 691, 163 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-v-canning-nyappdiv-1957.