From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karrat Bros. Co. v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 5, 1957
147 N.E.2d 477 (N.Y. 1957)

Opinion

Argued October 7, 1957

Decided December 5, 1957

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department FRED A. YOUNG, J.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( John R. Davison and Peter E. Herzog of counsel), for appellant.

Salvador J. Capecelatro and Salvador J. Capecelatro, Jr., for respondents.



As to the judgments of the Court of Claims in favor of Frieda Karrat, George Karrat, an infant, by Frieda Karrat, his guardian ad litem, and James Raya: Judgments affirmed, with costs.

As to the judgment of the Court of Claims in favor of John Karrat and the judgment of the Appellate Division in favor of Karrat Bros. Co., Inc.: Judgments reversed and original judgments of the Court of Claims dismissing their claims reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, upon the ground that the preponderance of the credible evidence supports a finding that John Karrat was guilty of contributory negligence in driving the vehicle of the corporation in its service. No opinion.

Concur: Judges DYE, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE. Chief Judge CONWAY and Judges DESMOND and FULD dissent as to the reversal of the judgments in favor of John Karrat and Karrat Bros. Co., Inc., and vote to affirm said judgments.


Summaries of

Karrat Bros. Co. v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 5, 1957
147 N.E.2d 477 (N.Y. 1957)
Case details for

Karrat Bros. Co. v. State of New York

Case Details

Full title:KARRAT BROS. CO., INC., Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 5, 1957

Citations

147 N.E.2d 477 (N.Y. 1957)
147 N.E.2d 477
169 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Wilkinson v. State of New York

Claimant Charles N. Wilkinson neglected this duty and his neglect was a contributing cause to the accident…

Wilkinson v. State

We are not informed as to what testimony the court believed and as to what he determined the conditions to…