Kokofsky v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kokofsky v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 890

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 890 (Kokofsky v. City of New York) 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

Kokofsky v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by respondents, who are husband and wife, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the wife, and for loss of services sustained and jnedical expenses incurred by the husband, judgment in favor of respond[891]*891ents, entered on the verdict of a jury, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Nolan, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff wife seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained as the result of the sudden stopping of a bus in which she was a passenger. Her proof not only establishes the sudden stopping, but explains the reason therefor. Giving her the most favorable inferences from the proof adduced, there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the bus driver, and no evidence from which it may reasonably be concluded that he was guilty of negligence which in any way contributed to the necessity for the sudden stop,

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

In an action by respondents, who are husband and wife, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the wife, and for loss of services sustained and jnedical expenses incurred by the husband, judgment in favor of respond[891]*891ents, entered on the verdict of a jury, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Nolan, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff wife seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained as the result of the sudden stopping of a bus in which she was a passenger. Her proof not only establishes the sudden stopping, but explains the reason therefor. Giving her the most favorable inferences from the proof adduced, there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the bus driver, and no evidence from which it may reasonably be concluded that he was guilty of negligence which in any way contributed to the necessity for the sudden stop,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kokofsky-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1946.