Towley v. King Arthur Rings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Towley v. King Arthur Rings, Inc.

54 A.D.2d 661, 387 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14189

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 661 (Towley v. King Arthur Rings, 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

Towley v. King Arthur Rings, Inc., 54 A.D.2d 661, 387 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

On remand from the Court of Appeals for a review of the facts, judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 28, 1974, unanimously af[662]*662firmed. Plaintiffs-respondents-appellants shall recover of defendant-appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. On the record before us, there was sufficient evidence adduced to support the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs against the defendant Mitchell Altman under the Colorado guest statute. (Colo. Rev. Stat., § 13-9-1 [1968].) We have considered the other points raised hereon and find them without merit. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Lane, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

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

On remand from the Court of Appeals for a review of the facts, judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 28, 1974, unanimously af[662]*662firmed. Plaintiffs-respondents-appellants shall recover of defendant-appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. On the record before us, there was sufficient evidence adduced to support the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs against the defendant Mitchell Altman under the Colorado guest statute. (Colo. Rev. Stat., § 13-9-1 [1968].) We have considered the other points raised hereon and find them without merit. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Lane, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 661, 387 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towley-v-king-arthur-rings-inc-nyappdiv-1976.