dismissing suit alleging a defective police car because the "plaintiff's evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, without total speculation, to permit the inference that any negligent act or omission on Conrail's part caused his injuries"
Summary of this case from Ojeda v. Metro. Transp. Auth.Submitted November 2, 1992
Decided December 17, 1992
Motion for renewal and/or reargument of motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (22 N.Y.CRR 500.11 [g] [3]).
dismissing suit alleging a defective police car because the "plaintiff's evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, without total speculation, to permit the inference that any negligent act or omission on Conrail's part caused his injuries"
Summary of this case from Ojeda v. Metro. Transp. Auth.Full title:OLIVER CROMWELL OWNERS, INC., Respondent, v. SYLVIA K. BENGUALID et al.…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Dec 17, 1992
There is no evidence that plaintiff misused the saw, which he had been directed to use ( compare Leon v.…
Ojeda v. Metro. Transp. Auth.Such suits have been dismissed for failure to show negligence with no suggestion that the claims would be…