Feola v. Spector Freight System, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feola v. Spector Freight System, Inc.

34 A.D.2d 791, 311 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914

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

DecidedMay 11, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 791 (Feola v. Spector Freight System, Inc.) 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

Feola v. Spector Freight System, Inc., 34 A.D.2d 791, 311 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, to recover damages for personal injuries of plaintiff Joseph C. Feola and for loss of consortium by his wife, plaintiff Clara Feola, the cross appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 15, 1969, as follows: defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the order as, on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, granted such relief to Joseph C. Feola; and plaintiff Clara Feola appeals from so much of -the order as denied her such relief. Order modified, on the law, by (1) striking from the first decretal paragraph thereof the word “ granted ” and substituting therefor the word “denied” and (2) striking out the second, third and fifth decretal paragraphs -thereof. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, questions of fact are presented which should be resolved after trial in the plaintiff husband’s cause of action for personal injuries (see Raolaslovic v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 245 N. Y. 91; Nieves v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 31 A D 2d 359, 360-361), as well as in the plaintiff wife’s derivative cause of action for loss of consortium (see Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co., 22 N Y 2d 498; Terranova v. Emil, 20 N Y 2d 493; De France v. Oestrike, 8 A D 2d 735). Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)

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 of plaintiff Joseph C. Feola and for loss of consortium by his wife, plaintiff Clara Feola, the cross appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 15, 1969, as follows: defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the order as, on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, granted such relief to Joseph C. Feola; and plaintiff Clara Feola appeals from so much of -the order as denied her such relief. Order modified, on the law, by (1) striking from the first decretal paragraph thereof the word “ granted ” and substituting therefor the word “denied” and (2) striking out the second, third and fifth decretal paragraphs -thereof. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, questions of fact are presented which should be resolved after trial in the plaintiff husband’s cause of action for personal injuries (see Raolaslovic v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 245 N. Y. 91; Nieves v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 31 A D 2d 359, 360-361), as well as in the plaintiff wife’s derivative cause of action for loss of consortium (see Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co., 22 N Y 2d 498; Terranova v. Emil, 20 N Y 2d 493; De France v. Oestrike, 8 A D 2d 735). Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 791, 311 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feola-v-spector-freight-system-inc-nyappdiv-1970.