Stanitis v. Cecere

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanitis v. Cecere

10 A.D.2d 727, 199 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11141

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 727 (Stanitis v. Cecere) 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

Stanitis v. Cecere, 10 A.D.2d 727, 199 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property (1st* and 2d causes of action), and for medical expenses and loss of services (3d cause of action), the appeal is from a judgment of the City Court of Mount Vernon, entered upon a jury’s verdict, in favor of respondents on the first and second causes of action. Respondent Sylvia Stanitis was injured when a motor vehicle owned by her husband, respondent Joseph Stanitis, and operated by her, was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle owned by appellant Michael Cecere and operated by appellant Luigi Cecere. Judgment reversed, first and second causes of action severed, and a new trial ordered as to the issues raised by said causes of action and the answer thereto, with costs to abide the event. There was testimony that in an effort to obtain sufficient clearance to complete a turn, respondent Sylvia Stanitis backed her vehicle partly into an intersection in the path of appellants’ oncoming vehicle, and came to a stop about three or four seconds prior to the impact. There is nothing to show, however, that appellant Luigi Cecere had actual knowledge of the danger in time to avert the collision. Under the circumstances, it was error to charge that liability could be predicated on the doctrine of last clear chance (Hernandez v. Brooklyn [728]*728& Queens Tr. Corp., 284 N. Y. 535; Panarese v. Union Ry. Co. of New York City, 261 N. Y. 233). Nolan, E. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property (1st* and 2d causes of action), and for medical expenses and loss of services (3d cause of action), the appeal is from a judgment of the City Court of Mount Vernon, entered upon a jury’s verdict, in favor of respondents on the first and second causes of action. Respondent Sylvia Stanitis was injured when a motor vehicle owned by her husband, respondent Joseph Stanitis, and operated by her, was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle owned by appellant Michael Cecere and operated by appellant Luigi Cecere. Judgment reversed, first and second causes of action severed, and a new trial ordered as to the issues raised by said causes of action and the answer thereto, with costs to abide the event. There was testimony that in an effort to obtain sufficient clearance to complete a turn, respondent Sylvia Stanitis backed her vehicle partly into an intersection in the path of appellants’ oncoming vehicle, and came to a stop about three or four seconds prior to the impact. There is nothing to show, however, that appellant Luigi Cecere had actual knowledge of the danger in time to avert the collision. Under the circumstances, it was error to charge that liability could be predicated on the doctrine of last clear chance (Hernandez v. Brooklyn [728]*728& Queens Tr. Corp., 284 N. Y. 535; Panarese v. Union Ry. Co. of New York City, 261 N. Y. 233). Nolan, E. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 727, 199 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanitis-v-cecere-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack