Rudman v. New York City Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Rudman v. New York City Transit Authority

239 N.E.2d 746, 22 N.Y.2d 863, 293 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1193

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 2, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 239 N.E.2d 746 (Rudman v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rudman v. New York City Transit Authority, 239 N.E.2d 746, 22 N.Y.2d 863, 293 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1193 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

, Order reversed and a new trial granted, with Costs to abide the event, in the following memorandum: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, we find an issue of fact as to defendant’s actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril presented by the testimony of plaintiff’s wife that she saw him lying on the tracks with the train approaching two city blocks away, coUpled with the motorman’s testimony that he observed plaintiff while he was still on the platform. Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs to abide the event) and the matter should be remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Concur: Judges Bergan, Keating, Breitel and JaseK. Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion at the Appellate Division.

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

, Order reversed and a new trial granted, with Costs to abide the event, in the following memorandum: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, we find an issue of fact as to defendant’s actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril presented by the testimony of plaintiff’s wife that she saw him lying on the tracks with the train approaching two city blocks away, coUpled with the motorman’s testimony that he observed plaintiff while he was still on the platform. Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs to abide the event) and the matter should be remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Concur: Judges Bergan, Keating, Breitel and JaseK. Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion at the Appellate Division.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 N.E.2d 746, 22 N.Y.2d 863, 293 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudman-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack