Gonzales v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzales v. Hall

39 A.D.2d 728, 332 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4672

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

DecidedMay 8, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 728 (Gonzales v. Hall) 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

Gonzales v. Hall, 39 A.D.2d 728, 332 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 7, 1971, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. The circumstances of the occurrence allow other inferences than that defendant was negligent (Matter of Radigan v. O’Connell, 304 N Y 396, 399). The defense asserted in defendant’s affidavit to the effect that his brother grabbed his left hand and caused him to lose control of his automobile presented a triable issue of fact. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 7, 1971, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. The circumstances of the occurrence allow other inferences than that defendant was negligent (Matter of Radigan v. O’Connell, 304 N Y 396, 399). The defense asserted in defendant’s affidavit to the effect that his brother grabbed his left hand and caused him to lose control of his automobile presented a triable issue of fact. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 728, 332 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzales-v-hall-nyappdiv-1972.