Sicari v. Arco Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sicari v. Arco Service, Inc.

2 A.D.2d 996, 158 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3396

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 996 (Sicari v. Arco Service, Inc.) 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

Sicari v. Arco Service, Inc., 2 A.D.2d 996, 158 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents against appellant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ha.nina.n and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Ughetta, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: The only reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that, for the purpose of moving a stove for his father-in-law, appellant’s employee, the defendant Sinacore, used appellant’s truck on a Sunday, without appellant’s permission. The accident happened during such unauthorized use of the truck. A verdict should have been directed in favor of appellant.

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

In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents against appellant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ha.nina.n and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Ughetta, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: The only reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that, for the purpose of moving a stove for his father-in-law, appellant’s employee, the defendant Sinacore, used appellant’s truck on a Sunday, without appellant’s permission. The accident happened during such unauthorized use of the truck. A verdict should have been directed in favor of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 996, 158 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sicari-v-arco-service-inc-nyappdiv-1956.