Fuhrmann v. Hanye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuhrmann v. Hanye

1 A.D.2d 894, 150 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 894 (Fuhrmann v. Hanye) 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

Fuhrmann v. Hanye, 1 A.D.2d 894, 150 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

—-In an action by respondent Mildred Fuhrmann to recover damages for personal injuries, and by her husband for medical expenses and loss of services and to recover damages for injuries to person and property, the appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of respondents. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Murphy, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint. Respondent Mildred Fuhrmann was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. She was driving at thirty-five miles an hour. It was dark and raining very hard. Her visibility was fifty feet. In consequence, she struck appellant’s car, which was stopped because of a prior accident.

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

—-In an action by respondent Mildred Fuhrmann to recover damages for personal injuries, and by her husband for medical expenses and loss of services and to recover damages for injuries to person and property, the appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of respondents. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Murphy, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint. Respondent Mildred Fuhrmann was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. She was driving at thirty-five miles an hour. It was dark and raining very hard. Her visibility was fifty feet. In consequence, she struck appellant’s car, which was stopped because of a prior accident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 894, 150 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuhrmann-v-hanye-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack