Porrovecchio v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porrovecchio v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

255 A.D. 1010, 8 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6256

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 1010 (Porrovecchio v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.) 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

Porrovecchio v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp., 255 A.D. 1010, 8 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The infant-plaintiff, riding on a bicycle, came into contact with one of the defendant’s trolley cars, by reason of which she sustained personal injuries. This suit is brought to recover for those damages. The action was tried by the court without a jury. Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was directed and entered. The defendant appeals theiefrom. Judgment reversed on the facts, with costs, defendant’s motion for judgment in its favor (which motion, under section 440 of the Civil Practice Act, is deemed to have been made) granted and complaint dismissed, with costs. Findings reversed. We find that the evidence estabhshes the improbability of the infant-plaintiff’s version of the happening of the accident, and that it clearly appears that the infant-plaintiff ran into the side of the moving trolley car without negligence on the part of defendant’s motorman. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

The infant-plaintiff, riding on a bicycle, came into contact with one of the defendant’s trolley cars, by reason of which she sustained personal injuries. This suit is brought to recover for those damages. The action was tried by the court without a jury. Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was directed and entered. The defendant appeals theiefrom. Judgment reversed on the facts, with costs, defendant’s motion for judgment in its favor (which motion, under section 440 of the Civil Practice Act, is deemed to have been made) granted and complaint dismissed, with costs. Findings reversed. We find that the evidence estabhshes the improbability of the infant-plaintiff’s version of the happening of the accident, and that it clearly appears that the infant-plaintiff ran into the side of the moving trolley car without negligence on the part of defendant’s motorman. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 1010, 8 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porrovecchio-v-brooklyn-queens-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1938.