Umpornpun v. CFR Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Umpornpun v. CFR Leasing Corp.

210 A.D.2d 189, 621 N.Y.S.2d 27

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 189 (Umpornpun v. CFR Leasing Corp.) 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

Umpornpun v. CFR Leasing Corp., 210 A.D.2d 189, 621 N.Y.S.2d 27 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Interlocutory judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered December 20, 1993, after bifurcated jury trial, apportioning liability 15% to plaintiff, 60% to defendant-appellant City of New York and 25% to defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the jury finding that the City’s failure to repair a traffic signal normally in operation at the intersection in question caused a dangerous situation because of potential confusion as to which of two vehicles entering this busy intersection would have the right of way, and was a [190]*190contributing proximate cause of the nighttime accident in which plaintiff was injured (cf., Sherman v City of New York, 206 AD2d 272; Cimino v City of New York, 54 AD2d 843, affd 43 NY2d 966). Concur—Ellerin, J. R, Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Interlocutory judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered December 20, 1993, after bifurcated jury trial, apportioning liability 15% to plaintiff, 60% to defendant-appellant City of New York and 25% to defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the jury finding that the City’s failure to repair a traffic signal normally in operation at the intersection in question caused a dangerous situation because of potential confusion as to which of two vehicles entering this busy intersection would have the right of way, and was a [190]*190contributing proximate cause of the nighttime accident in which plaintiff was injured (cf., Sherman v City of New York, 206 AD2d 272; Cimino v City of New York, 54 AD2d 843, affd 43 NY2d 966). Concur—Ellerin, J. R, Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 189, 621 N.Y.S.2d 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/umpornpun-v-cfr-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack