Sowarby v. Dohrenwend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sowarby v. Dohrenwend

92 A.D.2d 890, 460 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17280

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.2d 890 (Sowarby v. Dohrenwend) 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

Sowarby v. Dohrenwend, 92 A.D.2d 890, 460 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a wrongful death action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Quinn, J.), entered April 7, 1981, which dismissed the complaint, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. We reject plaintiff’s contentions that the driver was negligent as a matter of law or that the verdict in defendants’ favor was against the weight of the evidence. On this record, the question of whether the speed of the vehicle was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1180, subds [a], [e]) was a matter for the jury, and we are disinclined to overturn the verdict. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a wrongful death action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Quinn, J.), entered April 7, 1981, which dismissed the complaint, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. We reject plaintiff’s contentions that the driver was negligent as a matter of law or that the verdict in defendants’ favor was against the weight of the evidence. On this record, the question of whether the speed of the vehicle was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1180, subds [a], [e]) was a matter for the jury, and we are disinclined to overturn the verdict. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 890, 460 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sowarby-v-dohrenwend-nyappdiv-1983.