Ross v. Syracuse Transit Corp.

188 Misc. 123
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 30, 1948
StatusPublished

This text of 188 Misc. 123 (Ross v. Syracuse Transit Corp.) 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
Ross v. Syracuse Transit Corp., 188 Misc. 123 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

Opinion

Malpass, J.

These áre two actions to recover damages suffered by reason of the collision of a bus owned by the Syracuse Transit Corporation and an automobile owned by the defendant Anthony Gidari. The plaintiff Jenny Eoss was a passenger in the automobile of the defendant Gidari and suffered personal injuries as a result of the collision and her action is to recover damages for such injuries. The plaintiff Vincent Eoss is the husband of Jenny Eoss and his action is brought to recover damages for loss of services resulting from the injuries suffered by his wife.

The plaintiffs have recovered judgments against the defendant Gidari, but the jury found a verdict of no cause of action as to the defendant Syracuse Transit Corporation.

The defendant Syracuse Transit Corporation has made a motion in each of the above actions for an order awarding costs to it pursuant to the provisions of section 1476 of the Civil Practice Act. These defendants did not unite in the answers which were filed in these actions and they were not united in interest and it would seem that the defendant Syracuse Transit Corporation should be entitled to costs.

The action brought by the husband Vincent Eoss is a derivative action dependent absolutely upon the outcome of the action brought by his wife to recover for her personal injuries and it seems proper to allow the defendant only one bill of costs.

An order may be entered herein awarding to the defendant Syracuse Transit Corporation costs in the action brought by Jenny Eoss and denying defendant’s application for costs in the action brought in behalf of the plaintiff Vincent Eoss. (Haniford v. Safer, 214 App. Div. 435; McKeever v. Central Taxi Co., 248 App. Div. 629; Sullivan v. Wager, 161 Misc. 295; Hannon v. Epstein, 161 Misc. 356.)

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

Related

Haniford v. Safer
214 A.D. 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
McKeever v. Central Taxi Co.
248 A.D. 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Sullivan v. Wager
161 Misc. 295 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)
Hannon v. Epstein
161 Misc. 356 (New York Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 Misc. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-syracuse-transit-corp-nysupct-1948.