Green v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. City of New York

173 Misc. 1, 16 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2611

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 Misc. 1 (Green v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Green v. City of New York, 173 Misc. 1, 16 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under section 50-c of the General Municipal Law ownership by the city of the automobile involved in the accident is not a condition precedent to the imposition of liability if the police officer was operating the car in the discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment. The evidence clearly indicates that the police officer was operating the car at the time of the accident and was acting within the scope of his employment. The jury was justified in rejecting his testimony as inherently improbable and contrary to the physical facts.

[2]*2Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and verdict reinstated.

.Shientag and Noonan, JJ., concur; Hammer, J. I concur in the result but not that the testimony is inherently improbable, etc. Operation occurred when the car was moved through the exertion of physical or mechanical power whether willful or accidental.

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

Per Curiam.

Under section 50-c of the General Municipal Law ownership by the city of the automobile involved in the accident is not a condition precedent to the imposition of liability if the police officer was operating the car in the discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment. The evidence clearly indicates that the police officer was operating the car at the time of the accident and was acting within the scope of his employment. The jury was justified in rejecting his testimony as inherently improbable and contrary to the physical facts.

[2]*2Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and verdict reinstated.

.Shientag and Noonan, JJ., concur; Hammer, J. I concur in the result but not that the testimony is inherently improbable, etc. Operation occurred when the car was moved through the exertion of physical or mechanical power whether willful or accidental.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Misc. 1, 16 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack