Noody v. Facer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noody v. Facer

105 A.D.2d 1112, 482 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21207

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1112 (Noody v. Facer) 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

Noody v. Facer, 105 A.D.2d 1112, 482 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability relies primarily on his version of the facts and also that defendant pleaded guilty to a violation of section 1141 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Negligence cases do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment, since often, even if all parties are in agreement as to the underlying facts, the very question of negligence is itself a question for jury determination (Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 474). Special Term had before it the entire testimony of both plaintiff and the defendant operator at the examination before trial. This testimony raises several factual issues. Furthermore, since the adoption of the comparative negligence statute the jury is entitled to consider and determine each party’s proportionate liability. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Galloway, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability relies primarily on his version of the facts and also that defendant pleaded guilty to a violation of section 1141 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Negligence cases do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment, since often, even if all parties are in agreement as to the underlying facts, the very question of negligence is itself a question for jury determination (Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 474). Special Term had before it the entire testimony of both plaintiff and the defendant operator at the examination before trial. This testimony raises several factual issues. Furthermore, since the adoption of the comparative negligence statute the jury is entitled to consider and determine each party’s proportionate liability. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Galloway, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1112, 482 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noody-v-facer-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack