Mullen v. Reis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullen v. Reis

10 A.D.2d 910, 199 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10336

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

DecidedMay 3, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 910 (Mullen v. Reis) 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

Mullen v. Reis, 10 A.D.2d 910, 199 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the motion for summary judgment as to defendant-appellant Ronald Reis, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant Ronald Reis and defendant-respondent Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. There are present issues of fact in respect of the negligence of said defendant-appellant and the contributory negligence of plaintiff-appellant-respondent. The record raises at least an issue of fact as to whether or not the defendant-appellant backed his car into a line of people boarding a bus, or whether plaintiff walked into the defendant-appellant’s car while he was backing up. Concur — Rabin, J. P., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the motion for summary judgment as to defendant-appellant Ronald Reis, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant Ronald Reis and defendant-respondent Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. There are present issues of fact in respect of the negligence of said defendant-appellant and the contributory negligence of plaintiff-appellant-respondent. The record raises at least an issue of fact as to whether or not the defendant-appellant backed his car into a line of people boarding a bus, or whether plaintiff walked into the defendant-appellant’s car while he was backing up. Concur — Rabin, J. P., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 910, 199 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-reis-nyappdiv-1960.