Roberts v. Vastola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Vastola

282 A.D. 1011, 125 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5670

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1011 (Roberts v. Vastola) 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

Roberts v. Vastola, 282 A.D. 1011, 125 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event, upon the ground that the finding of defendants’ negligence and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence was against the weight of evidence. All concur for reversal and granting a new trial as to both defendants, except Vaughan and Piper, JJ., who vote for dismissal of the complaint as to defendant City of Buffalo upon the ground that the evidence fails to show any actionable negligence on the part of the city that was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. (Appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event, upon the ground that the finding of defendants’ negligence and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence was against the weight of evidence. All concur for reversal and granting a new trial as to both defendants, except Vaughan and Piper, JJ., who vote for dismissal of the complaint as to defendant City of Buffalo upon the ground that the evidence fails to show any actionable negligence on the part of the city that was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. (Appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1011, 125 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-vastola-nyappdiv-1953.