Singleton v. Bishop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singleton v. Bishop

19 A.D.2d 595, 240 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660

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

DecidedJune 4, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 595 (Singleton v. Bishop) 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

Singleton v. Bishop, 19 A.D.2d 595, 240 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 24, 1962, denying motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the third-party defendant-appellant, and the motion granted. If the accident was caused by defective brake repair and the operator defendant had knowledge of the defect, he would be primarily (actively) negligent. (Mills v. Gabriel, 259 App. Div. 60, affd. 284 N. Y. 755.) If he had no such knowledge, he would not be negligent as to the plaintiff guest insofar as the brakes were concerned. (Higgins v. Mason, 255 N. Y. 104.) There is no indemnity agreement. The third-party complaint is insufficient since defendant is not entitled to indemnity on the basis of plaintiff’s complaint against him. (Conte v. Large Scale Development Gorp., 10 N Y 2d 20, 29-30; Berg v. Toion of Huntington, 7 N Y 2d 871.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 24, 1962, denying motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the third-party defendant-appellant, and the motion granted. If the accident was caused by defective brake repair and the operator defendant had knowledge of the defect, he would be primarily (actively) negligent. (Mills v. Gabriel, 259 App. Div. 60, affd. 284 N. Y. 755.) If he had no such knowledge, he would not be negligent as to the plaintiff guest insofar as the brakes were concerned. (Higgins v. Mason, 255 N. Y. 104.) There is no indemnity agreement. The third-party complaint is insufficient since defendant is not entitled to indemnity on the basis of plaintiff’s complaint against him. (Conte v. Large Scale Development Gorp., 10 N Y 2d 20, 29-30; Berg v. Toion of Huntington, 7 N Y 2d 871.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 595, 240 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-bishop-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack