From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doyle v. Buturlinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 1, 1966
26 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Opinion

July 1, 1966


Appeal by defendant from an order of the County Court of Schenectady County which awarded summary judgment in a personal injury and property damage negligence action arising out of the collision of automobiles at a street intersection. The complaint alleges the causes of action in complete detail. The attorneys for the defendant subscribed their names to, and served an answer which denied without qualification "each and every allegation in the said Complaint contained"; the attorneys thus unequivocally denying, among other things, that the parties owned and operated the automobiles involved, and denying, indeed, that any accident occurred, and even that the city streets constituting the intersection were public thoroughfares. From defendant's answering affidavit, it is clear that his attorneys' denials were groundless. Aside from any ethical considerations, such attempts to create fictitious issues in routine cases of apparent liability on congested court calendars must be condemned. In a somewhat comparable evasion, counsel attacks as hearsay a police report of defendant's inculpatory statements, while leaving unchallenged the unequivocal statement in plaintiff's affidavit that such admissions were, in fact, made, and were so made in her presence and hearing. Although defendant's negligence seems to have been demonstrated, plaintiff's proof is silent as to the manner of her operation of her automobile and consequently fails to establish her freedom from contributory negligence. Viewing this omission, under the circumstances shown, as more technical than real, and taking into consideration the obstructive tactical procedures employed by appellant, we award costs to respondent. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied, with costs to respondent. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Doyle v. Buturlinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 1, 1966
26 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)
Case details for

Doyle v. Buturlinsky

Case Details

Full title:EILEEN DOYLE, Respondent v. M.P. BUTURLINSKY, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1966

Citations

26 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Citing Cases

French v. Colamaio

"Aside from any ethical considerations, such attempts to create fictitious issues * * * must be condemned". (…

Conte v. Pondfield Crossing Development Corp.

Nevertheless, all the facts of this case are yet to be developed. It would be premature for the Court to…