Macri v. Curry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macri v. Curry

19 A.D.2d 544, 240 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3738

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

DecidedMay 20, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 544 (Macri v. Curry) 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

Macri v. Curry, 19 A.D.2d 544, 240 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 23, 1962 after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case on the ground that he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. Under the facts of this case as viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, it appears that he crossed the avenue in question at a crosswalk; that he made an observation of traffic but that his view to the right was obstructed by a double-parked ear and possibly by supporting pillars of the elevated subway; and that it was dark. There is no proof that the headlights on the defendant’s automobile were lighted. Under all the circumstances it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent if he did not see the defendant’s automobile. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 23, 1962 after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case on the ground that he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. Under the facts of this case as viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, it appears that he crossed the avenue in question at a crosswalk; that he made an observation of traffic but that his view to the right was obstructed by a double-parked ear and possibly by supporting pillars of the elevated subway; and that it was dark. There is no proof that the headlights on the defendant’s automobile were lighted. Under all the circumstances it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent if he did not see the defendant’s automobile. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 544, 240 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macri-v-curry-nyappdiv-1963.