Perreca v. Wenner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perreca v. Wenner

33 A.D.2d 1030, 308 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1030 (Perreca v. Wenner) 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

Perreca v. Wenner, 33 A.D.2d 1030, 308 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 6, 1969, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and set the case down for a trial on the issues of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The record discloses that plaintiffs’ eyewitnesses themselves were participants in [1031]*1031the maneuvers directly preceding the accident. Under these circumstances, although plaintiffs’ case is very strong, defendant should not be deprived of his right to cross-examine them. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, 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 and property injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 6, 1969, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and set the case down for a trial on the issues of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The record discloses that plaintiffs’ eyewitnesses themselves were participants in [1031]*1031the maneuvers directly preceding the accident. Under these circumstances, although plaintiffs’ case is very strong, defendant should not be deprived of his right to cross-examine them. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1030, 308 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perreca-v-wenner-nyappdiv-1970.