Bullard v. Graham
| Decision Date | 23 October 1969 |
| Citation | 33 A.D.2d 550,304 N.Y.S.2d 492 |
| Parties | Horace BULLARD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edward GRAHAM and Jane Graham, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
R. N. Corash, Staten Island, for plaintiff-respondent.
C. F. Brady, Baldwin, for defendants-appellants.
Before EAGER, J.P., and CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN, NUNEZ and BASTOW, JJ.
Order entered May 8, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against defendants and, as so modified, affirmed without costs and without disbursements. The proof submitted by plaintiff discloses that the automobile owned by defendant husband was caused to move forward and strike the rear of plaintiff's vehicle by the act of the co-defendant in inadvertently hitting the accelerator with her foot. The proof is unclear, however, as to which defendant at the time was operating the vehicle. A triable issue is presented as to the negligence, if any, of defendants (cf. Feldman v. Lashine, 10 N.Y.2d 964, 224 N.Y.S.2d 282, 180 N.E.2d 62).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andre v. Pomeroy
...judgment relief in rear-end collision cases (see, e.g., Guigliano v. Basirico, 33 A.D.2d 1045, 308 N.Y.S.2d 815; Bullard v. Graham, 33 A.D.2d 550, 304 N.Y.S.2d 492; Velten v. Kirkbridge, 20 A.D.2d 546, 245 N.Y.S.2d 428; Colosino v. Rosenstock, 15 A.D.2d 663, 223 N.Y.S.2d 736; Poulter v. Mas......