Green v. Heslink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Heslink

212 A.D.2d 982, 623 N.Y.S.2d 684

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 982 (Green v. Heslink) 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

Green v. Heslink, 212 A.D.2d 982, 623 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly set aside the verdict of no cause for action and granted partial judgment against defendant Paul I. Heslink on the issue of liability notwithstanding the verdict. As a matter of law, the cattle trailer was a trailer under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 156 and was required to have operational directional signals.

We further conclude that the court should have granted partial judgment against the remaining defendants on the issue of liability notwithstanding the verdict. Because Heslink was acting in furtherance of the partnership business at the time of the accident, his partner and the partnership itself are liable as well (see, Partnership Law §§ 24, 26; Pedersen v Manitowoc Co., 25 NY2d 412, 419; Caplan v Caplan, 268 NY 445). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly set aside the verdict of no cause for action and granted partial judgment against defendant Paul I. Heslink on the issue of liability notwithstanding the verdict. As a matter of law, the cattle trailer was a trailer under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 156 and was required to have operational directional signals.

We further conclude that the court should have granted partial judgment against the remaining defendants on the issue of liability notwithstanding the verdict. Because Heslink was acting in furtherance of the partnership business at the time of the accident, his partner and the partnership itself are liable as well (see, Partnership Law §§ 24, 26; Pedersen v Manitowoc Co., 25 NY2d 412, 419; Caplan v Caplan, 268 NY 445). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 982, 623 N.Y.S.2d 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-heslink-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack