Johnson v. Mahyna

New York Supreme Court

Johnson v. Mahyna

74 Misc. 2d 1, 343 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2101

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 24, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 Misc. 2d 1 (Johnson v. Mahyna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Mahyna, 74 Misc. 2d 1, 343 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2101 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Richard N. Donovan, J.

Defendant Abbott’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Plaintiff was injured and damaged when a collision occurred between her car and a vehicle owned by defendant Abbott which had been stolen and was being driven by defendant Mahyna.

For the purposes of this decision, it is assumed defendant Abbott had left his keys in the ignition of his vehicle when it was parked in his garage which was attached to his home and located upon his private property several feet from the public thoroughfare. Mrs. Abbott heard the car being taken from the garage and observed it being driven from the driveway onto the public street in front of their home. She immediately called the police and the defendant was apprehended a few minutes later after the accident with the plaintiff. Defendant Abbott has submitted a police report which shows the theft was reported prior to the accident together with other information establishing [2]*2defendant Mahyna admitted theft of the automobile in a criminal proceeding.

Recognizing the fact the car was taken from private property rather than a public thoroughfare, plaintiff attempts to establish a cause of action against Abbott by relying upon the decisions in Guaspari v. Gorsky (36 A D 2d 225) and Watts v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co. (31 N Y 2d 685). In each case, the court considered the private property to be property used for vehicular traffic as either a private road or marginal street in allowing a cause of action. This court does not find those citations to be applicable but rather agrees with and makes a similar finding to that made by the court in General Acc. Group v. Noonan (66 Misc 2d 528).

Defendant Abbott shall submit an order in accordance with this decision dismissing the complaint against him.

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

Richard N. Donovan, J.

Defendant Abbott’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Plaintiff was injured and damaged when a collision occurred between her car and a vehicle owned by defendant Abbott which had been stolen and was being driven by defendant Mahyna.

For the purposes of this decision, it is assumed defendant Abbott had left his keys in the ignition of his vehicle when it was parked in his garage which was attached to his home and located upon his private property several feet from the public thoroughfare. Mrs. Abbott heard the car being taken from the garage and observed it being driven from the driveway onto the public street in front of their home. She immediately called the police and the defendant was apprehended a few minutes later after the accident with the plaintiff. Defendant Abbott has submitted a police report which shows the theft was reported prior to the accident together with other information establishing [2]*2defendant Mahyna admitted theft of the automobile in a criminal proceeding.

Recognizing the fact the car was taken from private property rather than a public thoroughfare, plaintiff attempts to establish a cause of action against Abbott by relying upon the decisions in Guaspari v. Gorsky (36 A D 2d 225) and Watts v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co. (31 N Y 2d 685). In each case, the court considered the private property to be property used for vehicular traffic as either a private road or marginal street in allowing a cause of action. This court does not find those citations to be applicable but rather agrees with and makes a similar finding to that made by the court in General Acc. Group v. Noonan (66 Misc 2d 528).

Defendant Abbott shall submit an order in accordance with this decision dismissing the complaint against him.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Misc. 2d 1, 343 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-mahyna-nysupct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack