Russell v. Stieglitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. Stieglitz

254 A.D. 681, 3 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7117

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

DecidedApril 1, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 681 (Russell v. Stieglitz) 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

Russell v. Stieglitz, 254 A.D. 681, 3 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile collision at the intersection of two streets in Searsdale, the driver of one car was killed and the automobile he was driving, owned by another, was practically destroyed. The decedent was proceeding along a main arterial street and the car of the appealing defendant approached from an intersecting street at the left, where there was a full stop sign. Two actions resulted — one to recover damages for wrongful act, neglect or default of the appealing defendant, and the other for property damage. The two actions were consolidated and tried together. The plaintiffs had verdicts. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with [682]*682costs. No opinion. The appeal by plaintiff Stephens is not pressed and is, therefore, dismissed, without costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

In an automobile collision at the intersection of two streets in Searsdale, the driver of one car was killed and the automobile he was driving, owned by another, was practically destroyed. The decedent was proceeding along a main arterial street and the car of the appealing defendant approached from an intersecting street at the left, where there was a full stop sign. Two actions resulted — one to recover damages for wrongful act, neglect or default of the appealing defendant, and the other for property damage. The two actions were consolidated and tried together. The plaintiffs had verdicts. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with [682]*682costs. No opinion. The appeal by plaintiff Stephens is not pressed and is, therefore, dismissed, without costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 681, 3 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-stieglitz-nyappdiv-1938.