Novesky v. Macduff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Novesky v. Macduff

280 A.D. 953, 116 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4346

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 953 (Novesky v. Macduff) 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

Novesky v. Macduff, 280 A.D. 953, 116 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, made December 26, 1951, suspending chauffeur’s license of petitioner for thirty days for violation of paragraph (e) of subdivision 3 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Determination annulled on the law and the facts, without costs. The only evidence of the cause of the accident was that petitioner momentarily closed his eyes. There is no proof that he knew or should have known that he was about to become drowsy. Under the circumstances, a finding of gross negligence or reckless disregard for life and property of others was not justified. (Matter of J enson V. Fletcher, 277 App. Div. 454, affd. 303 N. Y. 639; Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher, 278 App. Div. 1017.) Johnston, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur; Carswell, Acting P. J., and Wenzel, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, made December 26, 1951, suspending chauffeur’s license of petitioner for thirty days for violation of paragraph (e) of subdivision 3 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Determination annulled on the law and the facts, without costs. The only evidence of the cause of the accident was that petitioner momentarily closed his eyes. There is no proof that he knew or should have known that he was about to become drowsy. Under the circumstances, a finding of gross negligence or reckless disregard for life and property of others was not justified. (Matter of J enson V. Fletcher, 277 App. Div. 454, affd. 303 N. Y. 639; Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher, 278 App. Div. 1017.) Johnston, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur; Carswell, Acting P. J., and Wenzel, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 953, 116 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novesky-v-macduff-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack