Cresci v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 04 April 1968 |
| Citation | 289 N.Y.S.2d 763,21 N.Y.2d 932,237 N.E.2d 81 |
| Parties | , 237 N.E.2d 81 Eugene CRESCI, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 27 A.D.2d 277, 278 N.Y.S.2d 417.
Benjamin D. Fernbach, New York City (Benjamin H. Siff, New York City, on the brief, Alfred S. Julien, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Stanley Buchsbaum, Alfred Weinstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Motorist brought action against the City of New York for injuries sustained at night when automobile allegedly struck a wall on upper level of the Queensboro Bridge at S curve. The motorist sustained a serious brain injury which severely impaired his memory of the accident. All he could remember was that he was following the white line to the right of him at 20 to 25 miles an hour. When the police arrived the motorist's automobile was found about 200 feet from beginning of the S curve, and it was damaged on the front, on the sides, on the back, and on the top. The motorist contended that the City of New York was negligent in maintaining a misleading line on the roadway, and in allegedly failing to give adequate warnings of the S curve and in failing to illuminate the wall with which the automobile allegedly collided.
The Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County, Emilio Nunez, J., entered a judgment for the motorist, and the City of New York appealed.
The Appellate Division entered an order March 30, 1967 which reversed, on the law, the judgment of the Trial Term and directed dismissal of the complaint.
The Appellate Division held that evidence failed to establish negligence on part of the City of New York and freedom from contributory negligence on part of the motorist. Capozzoli, J., dissented in part.
The motorist appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that negligent maintenance of roadway with respect to misleading markings and inadequate warnings of dangerous condition was a question of fact properly resolved by jury, and that question of proximate relation between allegedly inadequate warnings and allegedly misleading markings and collision with wall bordering curve in highway was one of fact, and that whether negligent maintenance of highway was the proximate cause of accident and whether motorist was guilty of contributory negligence were questions of fact. The City of New York contended in the Court of Appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindquist v. Cnty. of Schoharie
...to provide an account of events (see Cresci v. City of New York, 27 A.D.2d 277, 279, 278 N.Y.S.2d 417 [1967], affd. 21 N.Y.2d 932, 289 N.Y.S.2d 763, 237 N.E.2d 81 [1968] ; see also Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 78, 80 N.E.2d 744 [1948] ). However, that doctrine is inapplicabl......
-
Schechter v. Klanfer
...was applied to an amnesiac plaintiff in Cresci v. City of New York, 27 A.D.2d 277, 279, 278 N.Y.S.2d 417, 418, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 932, 289 N.Y.S.2d 763, 237 N.E.2d 81, on the assumption that there could be no different standard than for a death case. The court, however, concluded that, even ap......
-
Lynn v. Lynn
...78, 80 N.E.2d 744), and cites this court's decision in Cresci v. City of New York, 27 A.D.2d 277, 278 N.Y.S.2d 417, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 932, 289 N.Y.S.2d 763, 237 N.E.2d 81 for the proposition that the Noseworthy doctrine should be applied to an amnesiac plaintiff who has little or no recollect......
-
Donato v. County of Schenectady
...(see, Pontello v. County of Onondaga, supra; Cresci v. City of New York, 27 A.D.2d 277, 279, 278 N.Y.S.2d 417, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 932, 289 N.Y.S.2d 763, 237 N.E.2d 81). We reject plaintiff's contention that his claimed amnesia as to how the accident happened excuses him from submitting proof o......