292 N.Y. 292, Reese v. Reamore

Citation:292 N.Y. 292
Party Name:Reese v. Reamore
Case Date:April 13, 1944
Court:New York Court of Appeals

Page 292

292 N.Y. 292

LILLIAN REESE, Appellant,

v.

FLOYD E. REAMORE, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

New York Court of Appeal

April 13, 1944

Argued January 6, 1944.

COUNSEL

Edwin J. Mizen and James H. Horan for appellant. The trial court properly withheld from defendant-respondent the benefit of his defense of ownership of the automobile by Peltier and it was error for the Appellate Division to reverse the judgment of the trial court. ( Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N.Y. 249; Buono v. Stewart Motor Trucks, Inc., 261 A.D. 1095;

Page 293

Longley v. Coons, 244 A.D. 391, 268 N.Y. 712; Noble v. City of Palo Alto, 89 Cal.App. 47; Allen v. Ennis, 253 A.D. 769, 279 N.Y. 578; Shuba v. Greendonner, 271 N.Y. 189; Goodyear v. Brown, 155 Penn. St. 514; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131; Seneca Co. Bank v. Lamb, 26 Barb. 595; Veazey v. Allen, 173 N.Y. 359; Attridge v. Pembroke, 235 A.D. 101; Coverly v. Terminal Warehouse Co., 85 A.D. 488; Sturm v. Truby, 245 A.D. 358.)

Leonard H. Amdursky, Edward A. Wolff and Robert G. Iles for respondent. I. The trial court correctly decided and found that Peltier, not the respondent, was the sole and actual owner of the car at the time of the accident. This has been affirmed by the Appellate Division and there is overwhelming evidence to support the finding and its affirmance. ( Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N.Y. 249; Potts v. Pardee, 220 N.Y. 431; St. Andrassy v. Mooney, 262 N.Y. 368; Rathfelder v. Flagg, 257 A.D. 71, 282 N.Y. 563.) II. There was no evidence that defendant-respondent consented to the use of a set of his dealer's plates on the Peltier car at the time of the accident. ( Underhill v. Major, 220 A.D. 173.) III. Even if respondent should have known that Peltier was wrongfully using his plates, or even if he did violate some rule or regulation in reference to the loaning of dealer's plates, still, Ackley's negligence could not be imputed to him as a matter of law. ( Klinkenstein v. Third Avenue Ry. Co., 246 N.Y. 327; Corbett v. Scott, 243 N.Y. 63; Clark v. Doolittle, 205 A.D. 697; Brown v. Shyne, 242 N.Y. 176; Audubon Transportation Co. v. Yonkers Railroad Co., 126 Misc. 180; Buono v. Stewart Motor Trucks, Inc., 261 A.D. 1095, 263 A.D. 969; Rathfelder v. Flagg, 257 A.D. 71, 282 N.Y. 563; Worsham Buick Co. v. Isaacs, 51 S.W.2d 277.)

THACHER, J.

On June 30, 1939, in the village of Camden, New York, a collision occurred between a Chevrolet sedan owned by William J. Peltier, which was driven by the defendant John S. Ackley, and a Hudson automobile owned and driven by plaintiff's husband in which plaintiff was a passenger.

The defendant Reamore, an automobile dealer, had sold the Chevrolet to Peltier some weeks before the accident and had allowed him to use his dealer's plates over a period of more

Page 294

than seven weeks, contrary to the provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, section 63. These plates...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP