Gallo v. Schneider

New York Supreme Court

Gallo v. Schneider

22 Misc. 2d 672, 204 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3078

DecidedMay 3, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Misc. 2d 672 (Gallo v. Schneider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gallo v. Schneider, 22 Misc. 2d 672, 204 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3078 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion by the plaintiffs for summary judgment in a personal injury and property damage action is denied.

Plaintiffs claim that at about 12:30 a.m., on a misty morning, their auto was standing still, that the plaintiff driver signalled a left turn so that they could enter the driveway of an adjoining restaurant, and that the defendants’ auto hit the plaintiffs’ anto in the rear. The plaintiffs also claim that their signal light was turned on approximately 10 feet before they came to a stop. In his examination before trial the defendant testified that he did not see the driver of the car in front of him give a hand signal or a mechanical signal. There exists a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs complied with section 1163 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. (See Becker v. Beir, 275 App. Div. 146 [4th Dept.]; Cyr v. McGrath, 8 A D 2d 898 [3d Dept.].) The hearsay affidavit submitted by defendants ’ attorney has no probative value and has been disregarded. (Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A D 2d 297, 301 [1st Dept.]; Barnet v. Horwitz, 278 App. Div. 700 [2d Dept.].) Motion denied.

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion by the plaintiffs for summary judgment in a personal injury and property damage action is denied.

Plaintiffs claim that at about 12:30 a.m., on a misty morning, their auto was standing still, that the plaintiff driver signalled a left turn so that they could enter the driveway of an adjoining restaurant, and that the defendants’ auto hit the plaintiffs’ anto in the rear. The plaintiffs also claim that their signal light was turned on approximately 10 feet before they came to a stop. In his examination before trial the defendant testified that he did not see the driver of the car in front of him give a hand signal or a mechanical signal. There exists a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs complied with section 1163 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. (See Becker v. Beir, 275 App. Div. 146 [4th Dept.]; Cyr v. McGrath, 8 A D 2d 898 [3d Dept.].) The hearsay affidavit submitted by defendants ’ attorney has no probative value and has been disregarded. (Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A D 2d 297, 301 [1st Dept.]; Barnet v. Horwitz, 278 App. Div. 700 [2d Dept.].) Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Misc. 2d 672, 204 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallo-v-schneider-nysupct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack