Hires v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hires v. New York Central Railroad

24 A.D.2d 1075, 265 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1075 (Hires v. New York Central Railroad) 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

Hires v. New York Central Railroad, 24 A.D.2d 1075, 265 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: In our opinion the papers presented by appellant at Special Term sufficiently establish that the issue of contributory negligence of plaintiff’s intestate was fully litigated and decided upon the merits against plaintiff in her prior action against the State of Hew York, which action arose out of the same accident as the present action against appellant. Defendant has sustained its burden of proof (Marine T. R. Corp. v. Switzerland Gen. Ins. Co., 263 N. Y. 139), and has “adequately established” (Stookey v. State of New York, 18 A D 2d 959) that judgment was rendered on the merits (Converse v. Sickles, 146 N. Y. 200; Genet v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 170 N. Y. 278) by “clear proof that such adjudication has been made” (Bell v. Merrifield, 109 N. Y. 202, 213). The prior judgment is a complete defense and precludes prosecution of the cause of action herein (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 5; Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N Y 2d 116; Friedman v. Park Lane Motors, 18 A D 2d 262.) (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: In our opinion the papers presented by appellant at Special Term sufficiently establish that the issue of contributory negligence of plaintiff’s intestate was fully litigated and decided upon the merits against plaintiff in her prior action against the State of Hew York, which action arose out of the same accident as the present action against appellant. Defendant has sustained its burden of proof (Marine T. R. Corp. v. Switzerland Gen. Ins. Co., 263 N. Y. 139), and has “adequately established” (Stookey v. State of New York, 18 A D 2d 959) that judgment was rendered on the merits (Converse v. Sickles, 146 N. Y. 200; Genet v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 170 N. Y. 278) by “clear proof that such adjudication has been made” (Bell v. Merrifield, 109 N. Y. 202, 213). The prior judgment is a complete defense and precludes prosecution of the cause of action herein (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 5; Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N Y 2d 116; Friedman v. Park Lane Motors, 18 A D 2d 262.) (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1075, 265 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hires-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack