Gooch v. Shapiro
| Decision Date | 21 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 3,No. 1,1,2,3 |
| Citation | 170 N.E.2d 830,8 N.Y.2d 1088,208 N.Y.S.2d 34 |
| Parties | , 170 N.E.2d 830 Howard GOOCH, Appellant, v. Ronald SHAPIRO and Andrew Holinko, Respondents. (Action) Jane HOLINKO et al., Appellants, v. Ronald SHAPIRO, Respondent. (Action) Adam ORZUCHOWSKI, Appellant, v. Ronald SHAPIRO, Respondent. (Action) |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 7 A.D.2d 307, 182 N.Y.S.2d 744.
Actions were brought for injuries sustained when northbound automobile of first defendant was struck by southbound automobile of second defendant when southbound automobile skidded on snow-covered road and went over a concrete divider and into northbound lane.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, Rocco A. Parella, J., after trial before a jury entered judgment for the plaintiff in the first action for $20,226.50 and dismissed the first defendant's cross-claim against the second defendant, and entered judgment in the second action for one of the plaintiffs for $10,222.70 and for the other plaintiff for $3,045, and for the plaintiff in the third action for $10,207.50, and the defendants appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment insofar as in favor of the plaintiffs, dismissed the complaints, affirmed the judgment as modified, and held that where southbound automobile was traveling slowly on snow-covered road when it suddenly skidded, and second defendant took his foot off of gas pedal and tapped the brake lightly, but nevertheless went over concrete divider and into northbound lane, only a short distance in front of northbound automobile, and northbound automobile was traveling at a speed well below prescribed limits for the highway, and there was a margin of more than 300 feet between northbound automobile and nearest automobile ahead, accident was unavoidable, and there was no basis for imputing fault to either defendant.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, and appellant Orzuchowski made a motion in the Court of Appeals for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person and for assignment of counsel.
The Court of Appeals, 6 N.Y.2d 840, 188 N.Y.S.2d 547, granted the motion to prosecute appeal as a poor person and for assignment of counsel and assigned Norman C. Harlowe, Esq., of 320 Broadway, New York City, as counsel for the appellant Orzuchowski on the appeal.
The Court of Appeals, 6 N.Y.2d 984, 191 N.Y.S.2d 953, granted motion by appellant Gooch for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Exp. Corp.
...301 affd. 9 N.Y.2d 662, 212 N.Y.S.2d 75, 173 N.E.2d 51 and Gooch v. Shapiro, 7 A.D.2d 307, 182 N.Y.S.2d 744, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 1088, 208 N.Y.S.2d 34, 170 N.E.2d 830. These authorities in the main stem back to Galbraith v. Busch, 267 N.Y. 230, 196 N.E. 36 and Lahr v. Tirrill, 274 N.Y. 112, 8 N.......
-
Palmer v. Palmer
...going in the opposite direction will cross over into that lane (Gooch v. Shapiro, 7 A.D.2d 307, 182 N.Y.S.2d 744, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 1088, 208 N.Y.S.2d 34, 170 N.E.2d 830). And the failure of a driver not otherwise negligent, who meets such a car, to avert the consequence of such an emergency c......
-
France v. Shannon
...accident. (See Breckir v. Lewis, 21 A.D.2d 546, 251 N.Y.S.2d 77; Gooch v. Shapiro, 7 A.D.2d 307, 182 N.Y.S.2d 744, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 1088, 208 N.Y.S.2d 34, 170 N.E.2d 830.) The circumstances here were such that the charge of the trial court should have been clear and explicit on the critical i......
-
Gouchie v. Gill
...428, aff'd, 27 N.Y.2d 945, 318 N.Y.S.2d 317, 267 N.E.2d 103; Gooch v. Shapiro, 7 A.D.2d 307, 182 N.Y.S.2d 744, aff'd, 8 N.Y.2d 1088, 208 N.Y.S.2d 34, 170 N.E.2d 830). The failure of a driver, not otherwise negligent, who encounters such a car, "to avert the consequence[s] of such an emergen......