Rees v. Grandelli

• Decision Date: 04 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 2,2
• Citation: 237 N.E.2d 230,21 N.Y.2d 946,289 N.Y.S.2d 977
• Parties: , 237 N.E.2d 230 Charles REES, Respondent, v. Louis GRANDELLI, Appellant, and George H. Cohen et al., Defendants. Joan A. Reid REES, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Louis GRANDELLI, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And Two Other Actions.) Action
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 977

289 N.Y.S.2d 977

21 N.Y.2d 946, 237 N.E.2d 230

Charles REES, Respondent, v. Louis GRANDELLI, Appellant, and George H. Cohen et al., Defendants.

Joan A. Reid REES, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Louis GRANDELLI, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And Two

Other Actions.)

Action No. 2.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 4, 1968.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 28 A.D.2d 565, 282 N.Y.S.2d 662.

Flood & Purvin, New York City (Asher Marcus, New York City, of counsel and on brief), for defendant-appellant.

Two separate automobile collisions occurred on icy roadway. The first automobile skidded into the second automobile, and the second automobile came to rest directly behind the first automobile in lane near center mall. About four or five minutes later, while the first and second automobiles were at a standstill, the third automobile struck the second automobile. The driver of the third automobile was operating it at 20 to 25 miles per hour on the icy roadway, when he saw the second automobile at a standstill and at an angle to the central mall, and the driver of the third automobile blew his horn, applied his brakes, and turned his steering wheel to the right, but the third automobile continued directly forward until it struck the second automobile, injuring the driver of the third automobile and two passengers in the third automobile. Four actions were brought. The driver of the third automobile sued the drivers of the first and second automobiles for injuries, and in the second action the passengers in the third automobile sued the drivers of the first and second automobiles, and in the third action the driver of the second automobile sued the drivers of the first and third automobiles, and in the fourth action the driver of the second automobile sued the driver of the third automobile and the driver of the first automobile.

There was evidence that after the first collision the driver of the second automobile left his automobile on the roadway to exchange license information with the driver of the first automobile, that he returned to the second automobile and was seated in it for a minute or two when it was struck in the rear by the third automobile.

The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Mario Pittoni, J., entered judgments in the first action in favor of the driver of the third automobile against the driver of the second automobile and in the second action in favor of one of the passengers in the third...