Fornaro v. Jill Bros.

New York Court of Appeals

Fornaro v. Jill Bros.

205 N.E.2d 862, 15 N.Y.2d 819, 257 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1592

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 11, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 205 N.E.2d 862 (Fornaro v. Jill Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fornaro v. Jill Bros., 205 N.E.2d 862, 15 N.Y.2d 819, 257 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1592 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

[821]*821Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum: Appellant neither alleged in his complaint nor sought to prove at the trial that the automobile in which the deceased infant was riding was, at the time of the accident, being operated by the driver (Eleanor Jill) in connection with or in furtherance of the business or interests of the vehicle’s owner (Jill Bros., Inc.). Such use, as the Appellate Division correctly observed, is a necessary predicate to the imposition of liability upon the OAvner under the law of New Jersey, the law clearly applicable to the issue of respondent OAvner’s vicarious liability. It follows, therefore, that respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. The course of the trial and the frame of the complaint suggest a misapprehension by the court and counsel of the applicable rule of liability, and hence the affirmance is without prejudice to such motion to amend the complaint as plaintiff may be advised to make.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan.

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

[821]*821Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum: Appellant neither alleged in his complaint nor sought to prove at the trial that the automobile in which the deceased infant was riding was, at the time of the accident, being operated by the driver (Eleanor Jill) in connection with or in furtherance of the business or interests of the vehicle’s owner (Jill Bros., Inc.). Such use, as the Appellate Division correctly observed, is a necessary predicate to the imposition of liability upon the OAvner under the law of New Jersey, the law clearly applicable to the issue of respondent OAvner’s vicarious liability. It follows, therefore, that respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. The course of the trial and the frame of the complaint suggest a misapprehension by the court and counsel of the applicable rule of liability, and hence the affirmance is without prejudice to such motion to amend the complaint as plaintiff may be advised to make.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 N.E.2d 862, 15 N.Y.2d 819, 257 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fornaro-v-jill-bros-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack