From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cosgrove v. Weierman

Supreme Court, Special Term, Richmond County
Oct 1, 1956
4 Misc. 2d 798 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)

Opinion

October 1, 1956

Thomas Schleier for plaintiff.

Hartsell, Harrington Jacobs for Elizabeth M. Weierman, as executrix, appearing specially.


Motion denied. The accident having occurred in New Jersey, section 52 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law has no application. There is no authority, statutory or otherwise, for continuing this action in personam against decedent's nonresident executrix. ( McMaster v. Gould, 240 N.Y. 379; Bennett v. Harrisville Combing Mills, 204 Misc. 279.) In Leighton v. Roper ( 300 N.Y. 434), relied upon by plaintiff, the court was concerned with the question of the constitutionality of chapter 719 of the Laws of 1945 amending section 52 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. There is nothing in the court's opinion in that case to support the argument that defendant's appearance in this action was intended to and did bind his executrix as well as himself.


Summaries of

Cosgrove v. Weierman

Supreme Court, Special Term, Richmond County
Oct 1, 1956
4 Misc. 2d 798 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)
Case details for

Cosgrove v. Weierman

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS F. COSGROVE, Plaintiff, v. ALBERT WEIERMAN, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Richmond County

Date published: Oct 1, 1956

Citations

4 Misc. 2d 798 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)
162 N.Y.S.2d 432