Holland v. Gallagher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holland v. Gallagher

11 A.D.2d 1027, 205 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7941

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 1027 (Holland v. Gallagher) 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

Holland v. Gallagher, 11 A.D.2d 1027, 205 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property sustained by plaintiff when defendant’s automobile ran into the rear of his (plaintiff’s) automobile while it was stationary, plaintiff was granted summary judgment. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 14, 1959, fixing plaintiff’s damages, after a jury trial which was held for that purpose. Judgment affirmed, with costs. If it be assumed that it was error for the court to charge that defendant was obligated to testify if he could throw additional light on the case, such error did not violate any of appellant’s substantial rights and may be disregarded (Civ. Prac. Act, § 106). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property sustained by plaintiff when defendant’s automobile ran into the rear of his (plaintiff’s) automobile while it was stationary, plaintiff was granted summary judgment. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 14, 1959, fixing plaintiff’s damages, after a jury trial which was held for that purpose. Judgment affirmed, with costs. If it be assumed that it was error for the court to charge that defendant was obligated to testify if he could throw additional light on the case, such error did not violate any of appellant’s substantial rights and may be disregarded (Civ. Prac. Act, § 106). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 1027, 205 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-gallagher-nyappdiv-1960.