Sanzo v. Toklas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanzo v. Toklas

10 A.D.2d 931, 200 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9652

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

DecidedMay 24, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 931 (Sanzo v. Toklas) 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

Sanzo v. Toklas, 10 A.D.2d 931, 200 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 4, 1960, which granted a motion by plaintiff pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice for summary judgment.

Memorandum by the Court.

Order granting summary judgment in this negligence action reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion is denied, with $10 costs, in its entirety. As to the plaintiff husband, who operated the automobile in which both plaintiffs were riding, there is at least an issue as to his contributory negligence. Such contributory negligence, if any, is of course not attributable to plaintiff wife. Defendants’ version of the manner in which the two cars collided is far from convincing, and might upon a trial well justify setting aside a verdict favorable to defendants as contrary to the weight of the evidence (Powers v. Medina, 1 A D 2d 727). On these papers, however, triable issues survive which preclude finding defendants liable as a matter of law. Nor are these issues dissolved by photographs tending to support plaintiffs’ version of the occurrence of the accident, but which do not conclusively destroy defendants’ version. In any event, the conflicting narratives of the occurrence of the accident and the photographs do not establish as a matter of law that any negligence of defendants was the proximate cause of the accident.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 4, 1960, which granted a motion by plaintiff pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice for summary judgment.

Memorandum by the Court.

Order granting summary judgment in this negligence action reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion is denied, with $10 costs, in its entirety. As to the plaintiff husband, who operated the automobile in which both plaintiffs were riding, there is at least an issue as to his contributory negligence. Such contributory negligence, if any, is of course not attributable to plaintiff wife. Defendants’ version of the manner in which the two cars collided is far from convincing, and might upon a trial well justify setting aside a verdict favorable to defendants as contrary to the weight of the evidence (Powers v. Medina, 1 A D 2d 727). On these papers, however, triable issues survive which preclude finding defendants liable as a matter of law. Nor are these issues dissolved by photographs tending to support plaintiffs’ version of the occurrence of the accident, but which do not conclusively destroy defendants’ version. In any event, the conflicting narratives of the occurrence of the accident and the photographs do not establish as a matter of law that any negligence of defendants was the proximate cause of the accident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 931, 200 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanzo-v-toklas-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack