Krtil v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krtil v. City of New York

259 A.D. 1049, 20 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7920

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

DecidedJune 24, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 1049 (Krtil 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

Krtil v. City of New York, 259 A.D. 1049, 20 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, caused by injuries he suffered when the ear he was operating collided with a truck owned by the defendant and parked in a public street, the plaintiff has recovered a judgment from which defendant appeals. Judgment, as resettled, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The questions of negligence on the part of the defendant and contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff’s intestate were properly submitted to the jury and we cannot say that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on either phase. Under circumstances disclosed by the record we cannot say as a matter of law that subdivision 3 of section 15 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was violated. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, caused by injuries he suffered when the ear he was operating collided with a truck owned by the defendant and parked in a public street, the plaintiff has recovered a judgment from which defendant appeals. Judgment, as resettled, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The questions of negligence on the part of the defendant and contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff’s intestate were properly submitted to the jury and we cannot say that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on either phase. Under circumstances disclosed by the record we cannot say as a matter of law that subdivision 3 of section 15 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was violated. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 1049, 20 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krtil-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1940.