Levy v. Stotchik

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. Stotchik

132 Misc. 453, 230 N.Y.S. 196, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 956

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 26, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 Misc. 453 (Levy v. Stotchik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Levy v. Stotchik, 132 Misc. 453, 230 N.Y.S. 196, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The testimony offered by the plaintiff is to the effect that while his car was standing at the curb of West Seventy-ninth street, which runs somewhat at a grade, defendant’s sedan car, with its windows so closed that an outsider was not able to reach the brake, rolled down an incline and damaged plaintiff’s car. From these facts there is surely a prima facie inference that the defendant’s car was negligently parked, either without brakes set or with defective brakes, quite apart from the neglect to take other possible precautions. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The testimony offered by the plaintiff is to the effect that while his car was standing at the curb of West Seventy-ninth street, which runs somewhat at a grade, defendant’s sedan car, with its windows so closed that an outsider was not able to reach the brake, rolled down an incline and damaged plaintiff’s car. From these facts there is surely a prima facie inference that the defendant’s car was negligently parked, either without brakes set or with defective brakes, quite apart from the neglect to take other possible precautions. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 Misc. 453, 230 N.Y.S. 196, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-stotchik-nyappterm-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack