Manacher v. Central Coal Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manacher v. Central Coal Co.

5 A.D.2d 820, 170 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6915

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 820 (Manacher v. Central Coal Co.) 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

Manacher v. Central Coal Co., 5 A.D.2d 820, 170 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant has been convicted of a violation of section 20 (subd. 4, par. a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which reads in part as follows: “nor shall any person knowingly authorize or permit the operation or driving of a motor vehicle owned by him or in his charge upon a public highway of this state by any person who is not duly licensed”. There was no proof from which the City Magistrate could properly have found that defendant authorized or permitted the operation of his automobile by a person who he knew was an unlicensed driver. The People failed to prove actual knowledge of that fact on the part of defendant, nor was there any proof of circumstances warranting an inference of such knowledge. Such an essential element of the People’s proof was the establishment of defendant’s knowledge of the fact that the person operating his ear with his consent was an unlicensed driver, the judgment of conviction must be reversed on the law, the fine remitted and a new trial ordered.

Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Defendant has been convicted of a violation of section 20 (subd. 4, par. a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which reads in part as follows: “nor shall any person knowingly authorize or permit the operation or driving of a motor vehicle owned by him or in his charge upon a public highway of this state by any person who is not duly licensed”. There was no proof from which the City Magistrate could properly have found that defendant authorized or permitted the operation of his automobile by a person who he knew was an unlicensed driver. The People failed to prove actual knowledge of that fact on the part of defendant, nor was there any proof of circumstances warranting an inference of such knowledge. Such an essential element of the People’s proof was the establishment of defendant’s knowledge of the fact that the person operating his ear with his consent was an unlicensed driver, the judgment of conviction must be reversed on the law, the fine remitted and a new trial ordered.

Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 820, 170 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manacher-v-central-coal-co-nyappdiv-1958.