From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cicero v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1965
23 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

February 23, 1965


In a negligence action arising from a collision between two automobiles, the defendants appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 9, 1964, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages; and (2) from an order of said court, made September 10, 1964 upon reargument, which again granted the motion. Appeal from order of September 9, 1964 dismissed, without costs as academic; such order was superseded by the later order of September 10, 1964, made upon reargument. Order of September 10, 1964 reversed, without costs, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, on this record triable issues of fact exist: (a) as to the alleged negligence of the defendant in falling asleep at the wheel of the automobile while driving ( Smith v. McIntyre, 20 A.D.2d 711; Donahue v. Romahn, 10 A.D.2d 637); and (b) as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff ( Vignola v. Britts, 11 A.D.2d 801). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cicero v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1965
23 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Cicero v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:ROSEMARY CICERO, Respondent, v. EUGENE P. CLARK et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 23, 1965

Citations

23 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

Spivak v. Heyward

We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should…

Harvey v. Dileno

Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs' motion denied. In our opinion, the record presents triable…