Shelley v. Carrier Bus Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shelley v. Carrier Bus Corp.

36 A.D.2d 862, 321 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4218

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

DecidedApril 26, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.2d 862 (Shelley v. Carrier Bus Corp.) 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

Shelley v. Carrier Bus Corp., 36 A.D.2d 862, 321 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

[863]*863Rabin, P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Gulotta, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., concurs, with the following memorandum: I agree with the dissent of Mr. Justice Hopkins in Zleinman v. Frank, 34 A D 2d 121, 124, but in view of the majority opinion in that case which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (28 N Y 2d 603), I am constrained to concur. The result of a reversal here is to immunize the owner of the vehicle, Ingle, from liability merely because the suit here is directly by the bailee-passenger plaintiff against him. If the plaintiff had sued McKenna, the driver of the automobile, his liability would have been unassailable and the verdict against him would have had to be paid by Ingle's insurer, since McKenna as the operator was an assured under the Ingle liability policy (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 345). I submit that this fact pattern warrants a narrowing of the scope of Gochee v. Wagner, 257 N. Y. 344, but it is for the Court of Appeals to make such a determination.

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

[863]*863Rabin, P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Gulotta, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., concurs, with the following memorandum: I agree with the dissent of Mr. Justice Hopkins in Zleinman v. Frank, 34 A D 2d 121, 124, but in view of the majority opinion in that case which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (28 N Y 2d 603), I am constrained to concur. The result of a reversal here is to immunize the owner of the vehicle, Ingle, from liability merely because the suit here is directly by the bailee-passenger plaintiff against him. If the plaintiff had sued McKenna, the driver of the automobile, his liability would have been unassailable and the verdict against him would have had to be paid by Ingle's insurer, since McKenna as the operator was an assured under the Ingle liability policy (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 345). I submit that this fact pattern warrants a narrowing of the scope of Gochee v. Wagner, 257 N. Y. 344, but it is for the Court of Appeals to make such a determination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.2d 862, 321 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelley-v-carrier-bus-corp-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack