Kroog v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kroog v. Ray

52 A.D.2d 840, 382 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12667

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

DecidedMay 3, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 840 (Kroog v. Ray) 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

Kroog v. Ray, 52 A.D.2d 840, 382 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 26, 1975, which dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s offer of proof, at the opening of the trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Trial Term properly dismissed the complaint on the authority of [841]*841Stahli v McGlynn (47 AD2d 238). Plaintiff erroneously contends that defendant’s intentional leaving of the accident scene distinguishes Stahli. The fact that the operator of the other vehicle left the accident scene creates no exception to the rule that there is no recovery for "emotional distress [and ensuing injury following] awareness of * * * damage to one’s property” (p 240). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Hargett and Shapiro, 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 wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 26, 1975, which dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s offer of proof, at the opening of the trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Trial Term properly dismissed the complaint on the authority of [841]*841Stahli v McGlynn (47 AD2d 238). Plaintiff erroneously contends that defendant’s intentional leaving of the accident scene distinguishes Stahli. The fact that the operator of the other vehicle left the accident scene creates no exception to the rule that there is no recovery for "emotional distress [and ensuing injury following] awareness of * * * damage to one’s property” (p 240). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Hargett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 840, 382 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kroog-v-ray-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack