Respass v. Corley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Respass v. Corley

22 A.D.2d 664, 253 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 664 (Respass v. Corley) 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

Respass v. Corley, 22 A.D.2d 664, 253 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments unanimously modified so as to vacate same as against defendants Corley [665]*665and Jackson, on the law and the facts, and a new trial as against those defendants ordered, with costs to prevailing appellants to abide the event and as thus modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents as against defendant Wright. The action arose out of a collision in which three automobiles were involved. Plaintiffs in one action were passengers and in the other the driver of a taxi which stopped for a red light at an intersection. It was hit in the rear by defendant-appellant’s ear. It is undisputed that defendant-appellant’s car was also hit in the rear by defendant Wright’s car and propelled into the taxi. Plaintiffs claim that defendant-appellant’s car hit the taxi twice, once under its own power and once by being propelled by the defendant Wright. This contention, accepted by the jury, is against the weight of evidence. It is contradicted by all of the defendants and has practically no support in the testimony as to the damage to the respective automobiles. The claim is supported solely by the testimony of the passenger plaintiff that she felt two bumps. Assuming this testimony to be true, it would not be extraordinary for the two bumps to be the result of a single collision. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgments unanimously modified so as to vacate same as against defendants Corley [665]*665and Jackson, on the law and the facts, and a new trial as against those defendants ordered, with costs to prevailing appellants to abide the event and as thus modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents as against defendant Wright. The action arose out of a collision in which three automobiles were involved. Plaintiffs in one action were passengers and in the other the driver of a taxi which stopped for a red light at an intersection. It was hit in the rear by defendant-appellant’s ear. It is undisputed that defendant-appellant’s car was also hit in the rear by defendant Wright’s car and propelled into the taxi. Plaintiffs claim that defendant-appellant’s car hit the taxi twice, once under its own power and once by being propelled by the defendant Wright. This contention, accepted by the jury, is against the weight of evidence. It is contradicted by all of the defendants and has practically no support in the testimony as to the damage to the respective automobiles. The claim is supported solely by the testimony of the passenger plaintiff that she felt two bumps. Assuming this testimony to be true, it would not be extraordinary for the two bumps to be the result of a single collision. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 664, 253 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/respass-v-corley-nyappdiv-1964.