Rogers v. Glassman Memorial Home, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogers v. Glassman Memorial Home, Inc.

27 A.D.2d 542, 275 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 542 (Rogers v. Glassman Memorial Home, Inc.) 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

Rogers v. Glassman Memorial Home, Inc., 27 A.D.2d 542, 275 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 7, 1966, reversed, on the law, insofar as it is in favor of defendants Glassman Memorial Home, Ine., and Jack Fireozan and, as against said respondents, the action is severed and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. Said judgment is affirmed insofar as it is in favor of the other respondents, with one bill of costs to them jointly. In our opinion, plaintiff Marylin Rogers’ testimony that the automobile in which she was a passenger was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by defendant Glassman Memorial Home, Ine., and operated by defendant Fireozan was sufficient to impose a duty of explanation upon those defendants (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N Y 2d 132, 135-136; Carter v. Castle Elec. Contr. Co., 26 A D 2d 83, 85). Her testimony as to the conduct of the other respondents indicates (1) that she was in a position to testify as to negligent acts on their part if such acts existed and (2) that they were not negligent. As to them, therefore, the judgment is affirmed. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 7, 1966, reversed, on the law, insofar as it is in favor of defendants Glassman Memorial Home, Ine., and Jack Fireozan and, as against said respondents, the action is severed and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. Said judgment is affirmed insofar as it is in favor of the other respondents, with one bill of costs to them jointly. In our opinion, plaintiff Marylin Rogers’ testimony that the automobile in which she was a passenger was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by defendant Glassman Memorial Home, Ine., and operated by defendant Fireozan was sufficient to impose a duty of explanation upon those defendants (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N Y 2d 132, 135-136; Carter v. Castle Elec. Contr. Co., 26 A D 2d 83, 85). Her testimony as to the conduct of the other respondents indicates (1) that she was in a position to testify as to negligent acts on their part if such acts existed and (2) that they were not negligent. As to them, therefore, the judgment is affirmed. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 542, 275 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-glassman-memorial-home-inc-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack