From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLaughlin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 1961
12 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Opinion

January 9, 1961


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant Martin's negligence in the operation of an automobile, causing it to jump the curb and strike the infant plaintiff while she was standing on the sidewalk awaiting a bus, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 17, 1960 (and entered Feb. 19, 1960), granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. Defendants claim that the driver of the automobile was confronted with an emergent situation. In our opinion, it was error to determine summarily on motion, on this record, that plaintiffs' causes of action were established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in their favor (cf. Gerard v. Inglese, 12 A.D.2d 381). Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McLaughlin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 1961
12 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)
Case details for

McLaughlin v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:LILLIAN McLAUGHLIN, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, HENRY McLAUGHLIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 9, 1961

Citations

12 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Citing Cases

Rake v. Nobles

The weight of decisional law is adverse to granting of the motion. ( Sanzo v. Toklas, 10 A.D.2d 931 [1st…

Cooper v. Greyhound Bus Corp.

But if there is reasonable ground for debate, one way or the other, it seems clear summary judgment is not…