Leonard v. O'Mara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leonard v. O'Mara

22 A.D.2d 835, 253 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2783

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 835 (Leonard v. O'Mara) 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

Leonard v. O'Mara, 22 A.D.2d 835, 253 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A comparison of the relative contacts and interests of the States of New York and Vermont in this litigation sounding in automobile negligence — the flexible jurisdictional test formulated in Babcock v. Jackson (12 N Y 2d 473)—makes clear that the traditional rule should be applied (see Naphtali v. Lafazan, 8 A D 2d 22, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1097) and the rights and liabilities of the parties stemming from the operation of the latter’s guest statute, to which the third affirmative defense relates, governed by the law of Vermont where the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reinstating the third separate defense and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs. Herlihy, J. p., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

A comparison of the relative contacts and interests of the States of New York and Vermont in this litigation sounding in automobile negligence — the flexible jurisdictional test formulated in Babcock v. Jackson (12 N Y 2d 473)—makes clear that the traditional rule should be applied (see Naphtali v. Lafazan, 8 A D 2d 22, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1097) and the rights and liabilities of the parties stemming from the operation of the latter’s guest statute, to which the third affirmative defense relates, governed by the law of Vermont where the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reinstating the third separate defense and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs. Herlihy, J. p., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 835, 253 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-omara-nyappdiv-1964.