Gladding v. Pugach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gladding v. Pugach

18 A.D.2d 1096, 239 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3887

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

DecidedApril 22, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1096 (Gladding v. Pugach) 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

Gladding v. Pugach, 18 A.D.2d 1096, 239 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 17, 1963, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it [1097]*1097appears on its. face that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause qf action (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 4). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While neither the bill of particulars served after answer nor the examination before trial may be considered on this motion, it is our opinion that the allegations of the complaint itself are sufficient to state a cause of action. It is alleged that, while plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant’s motor vehicle, it was “ involved in a collision ” on the public streets, with resultant injuries to plaintiff. The subsequent general charge of defendant’s “sole negligence” relates to the collision and constitutes in effect a charge that the automobile was negligently operated by defendant, which is sufficient (Lacovara v. Fleet Transp. Co., 12 A D 2d 957; Peterson v. Eighmie, 175 App. Div. 113; Wylie v. Stevens, 261 App. Div. 1031). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 17, 1963, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it [1097]*1097appears on its. face that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause qf action (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 4). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While neither the bill of particulars served after answer nor the examination before trial may be considered on this motion, it is our opinion that the allegations of the complaint itself are sufficient to state a cause of action. It is alleged that, while plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant’s motor vehicle, it was “ involved in a collision ” on the public streets, with resultant injuries to plaintiff. The subsequent general charge of defendant’s “sole negligence” relates to the collision and constitutes in effect a charge that the automobile was negligently operated by defendant, which is sufficient (Lacovara v. Fleet Transp. Co., 12 A D 2d 957; Peterson v. Eighmie, 175 App. Div. 113; Wylie v. Stevens, 261 App. Div. 1031). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1096, 239 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gladding-v-pugach-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack