From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eichenholtz v. Livery Service Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1972
40 A.D.2d 990 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Opinion

December 11, 1972


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 29, 1972, in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability, upon a jury verdict, after trial on that issue only. Interlocutory judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The court has considered the questions of fact and has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions. In our opinion, section 1201 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law should not have been charged to the jury. The applicable law to be charged should have been the pertinent provisions of the Traffic Regulations of the City of New York (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1642; Giordano v. Sheridan Maintenance Corp., 38 A.D.2d 552). Defendant's erroneous request to charge subdivision (b) of section 1201 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, because the Trial Justice had already charged subdivision (a) of that section, only compounded the error in the charge in making any reference to section 1201. Under the circumstances of this case, defendant's request to charge subdivision (b) of section 1201 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and its failure to request to charge the applicable provisions of the Traffic Regulations of the City of New York do not estop defendant from raising, on appeal, the inadequacies of the charge. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Munder, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, concur.


Summaries of

Eichenholtz v. Livery Service Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1972
40 A.D.2d 990 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
Case details for

Eichenholtz v. Livery Service Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SEYMOUR EICHENHOLTZ, Respondent, v. LIVERY SERVICE CORP., Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 11, 1972

Citations

40 A.D.2d 990 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
338 N.Y.S.2d 667

Citing Cases

Fox v. Lyte

That statutory provision was in this case, superseded by City of New York Traffic Regulations § 60 (see,…

Finkel v. Benoit

Weighing that testimony and the testimony of Ms. Finkel, we conclude the verdict could not have been reached…