Flynn v. New York & Long Island Traction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flynn v. New York & Long Island Traction Co.

163 A.D. 867, 147 N.Y.S. 1111

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

DecidedApril 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D. 867 (Flynn v. New York & Long Island Traction Co.) 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

Flynn v. New York & Long Island Traction Co., 163 A.D. 867, 147 N.Y.S. 1111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgement and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Upon a previous appeal in this case we decided that substantially the same evidence as that here presented on behalf of the plaintiff required submission to the jury of the question of defendant’s negligence. (158 App. Div. 169.) It is immaterial who gave the signal to stop the car. The evidence of plaintiff is that it did stop at Tenth street. It then became the duty of the conductor to afford plaintiff reasonable time and opportunity to alight, before giving the signal to start. The fact that the complaint alleges that such signal was given by the conductor, while the evidence may establish the fact that it was given by some one else under his authority, does not constitute a variance. (Bradbury Rules of Pleading, 8, subd. 5.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.

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

Judgement and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Upon a previous appeal in this case we decided that substantially the same evidence as that here presented on behalf of the plaintiff required submission to the jury of the question of defendant’s negligence. (158 App. Div. 169.) It is immaterial who gave the signal to stop the car. The evidence of plaintiff is that it did stop at Tenth street. It then became the duty of the conductor to afford plaintiff reasonable time and opportunity to alight, before giving the signal to start. The fact that the complaint alleges that such signal was given by the conductor, while the evidence may establish the fact that it was given by some one else under his authority, does not constitute a variance. (Bradbury Rules of Pleading, 8, subd. 5.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D. 867, 147 N.Y.S. 1111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-new-york-long-island-traction-co-nyappdiv-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack