Gunn v. Springhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gunn v. Springhorn

16 A.D.2d 696, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10070

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

DecidedApril 30, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 696 (Gunn v. Springhorn) 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

Gunn v. Springhorn, 16 A.D.2d 696, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action arising out of a rear-end automobile collision, the defendant Herman Springhorn appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, dated October 6, 1961, and entered in Dutchess County, November 9, 1961, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact which should be resolved upon a trial. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Hill, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order granting summary judgment, on the ground that the explanation in defendant’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion, is incredible as a matter of law.

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

In a negligence action arising out of a rear-end automobile collision, the defendant Herman Springhorn appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, dated October 6, 1961, and entered in Dutchess County, November 9, 1961, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact which should be resolved upon a trial. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Hill, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order granting summary judgment, on the ground that the explanation in defendant’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion, is incredible as a matter of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 696, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunn-v-springhorn-nyappdiv-1962.