Tormey v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tormey v. Kelly

6 A.D.2d 798, 175 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5679

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

DecidedJune 2, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 798 (Tormey v. Kelly) 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

Tormey v. Kelly, 6 A.D.2d 798, 175 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of respondent suspending for 30 days petitioner’s license to drive a motor vehicle for violation of paragraph (e) of subdivision 3 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The proceeding has been transferred to this court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296). Determination annulled, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the evidence adduced did not meet the standard required for a finding of gross negligence. While there is evidence of ordinary negligence, we find no substantial evidence that petitioner operated his motor vehicle in such manner as to constitute a disregard of the consequences or indifference to the rights of others, as required by the statute. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of respondent suspending for 30 days petitioner’s license to drive a motor vehicle for violation of paragraph (e) of subdivision 3 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The proceeding has been transferred to this court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296). Determination annulled, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the evidence adduced did not meet the standard required for a finding of gross negligence. While there is evidence of ordinary negligence, we find no substantial evidence that petitioner operated his motor vehicle in such manner as to constitute a disregard of the consequences or indifference to the rights of others, as required by the statute. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 798, 175 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tormey-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1958.