Roden v. Amenella

New York Supreme Court

Roden v. Amenella

22 Misc. 2d 671, 204 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3071

DecidedMay 4, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Misc. 2d 671 (Roden v. Amenella) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roden v. Amenella, 22 Misc. 2d 671, 204 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3071 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment denied.

The plaintiff claims that on May 15, 1959 he was driving his automobile in a northerly direction across the Bronx-White-stone Bridge and had come to a halt, behind a line of vehicles which had stopped at the bridge toll booths situated at the northerly or Bronx end of the bridge, when the defendant plowed into the rear of his anto and propelled it forward into the vehicle ahead.

The defendant claims that he was proceeding past, a truck and was crossing into the lane where the. accident happened when he heard the screeching of brakes coming from the plaintiff’s car; and that the plaintiff made a sudden stop and was in a collision with the car ahead of Ms before the defendant collided with the plaintiff’s anto. Triable issues of fact exist which require determination by a trial. The operator of the rear car is not necessarily negligent if it strikes the ear ahead, which stopped without warning (Zwilling v. Harrison, 269 N. Y. 461). Motion denied.

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment denied.

The plaintiff claims that on May 15, 1959 he was driving his automobile in a northerly direction across the Bronx-White-stone Bridge and had come to a halt, behind a line of vehicles which had stopped at the bridge toll booths situated at the northerly or Bronx end of the bridge, when the defendant plowed into the rear of his anto and propelled it forward into the vehicle ahead.

The defendant claims that he was proceeding past, a truck and was crossing into the lane where the. accident happened when he heard the screeching of brakes coming from the plaintiff’s car; and that the plaintiff made a sudden stop and was in a collision with the car ahead of Ms before the defendant collided with the plaintiff’s anto. Triable issues of fact exist which require determination by a trial. The operator of the rear car is not necessarily negligent if it strikes the ear ahead, which stopped without warning (Zwilling v. Harrison, 269 N. Y. 461). Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Misc. 2d 671, 204 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roden-v-amenella-nysupct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack