Rosenthal v. Monastra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenthal v. Monastra

27 A.D.2d 749, 277 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4829

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 749 (Rosenthal v. Monastra) 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

Rosenthal v. Monastra, 27 A.D.2d 749, 277 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 22, 1966, reversed and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied, without costs. The infant plaintiff, 18 years of age at the time of the accident which is the basis of this action, was a passenger in a car owned and operated by defendant. The night was clear and the road dry. The car suddenly swerved off the road. There is no clear explanation in the papers on the motion as to how the accident occurred. In our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of discretion by the learned Special Term to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The issue of negligence and any other relevant issues should be tried and determined by a jury (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N Y 2d. 132, and cases there cited). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 22, 1966, reversed and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied, without costs. The infant plaintiff, 18 years of age at the time of the accident which is the basis of this action, was a passenger in a car owned and operated by defendant. The night was clear and the road dry. The car suddenly swerved off the road. There is no clear explanation in the papers on the motion as to how the accident occurred. In our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of discretion by the learned Special Term to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The issue of negligence and any other relevant issues should be tried and determined by a jury (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N Y 2d. 132, and cases there cited). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 749, 277 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-monastra-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack